Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Trump Ballot Case; Arguments Wrap In Trump Ballot Case At Supreme Court; Justices' Questions Suggest Support For Trump In Ballot Dispute; Trump Speaks After Supreme Court Ballot Hearing. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired February 08, 2024 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: And so, I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren't focusing on the president, and for example the fact that electors of vice president and president are there suggests that really what they thought was if we're worried about the charismatic person, we are going to bar insurrectionist electors, and therefore that person is never going to rise.

JASON MURRAY, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING COLORADO VOTERS: This came up in the debates in Congress over Section 3, where Robert Johnson said, why haven't you included president and vice president in the language. And Senator Murrell response, we have. Look at the language any office under the United States.

BROWN JACKSON: Yes. But doesn't that at least suggest ambiguity. And this sort of ties into Justice Kavanaugh point. In other words, we had a person right there at the time, saying what I'm saying that the language here doesn't seem to include president. Why is that? And so, if there is an ambiguity, why would we construe it to -- as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out against democracy.

MURRAY: Liberty Johnson came back and agreed with that reading. Any office is clear, the constitution says about 20 times.

BROWN JACKSON: No. I'm not going to that. So let me just say. So, your point is that that there's no ambiguity -- with having a list and not having president in it, with having a history that suggests that they were really focused on local concerns in the south. With this conversation, where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you're saying there is no ambiguity in Section 3?

MURRAY: Let me take the point specifically about electors and Senators. If I might, I think that's important. Presidential electors were not covered because they don't hold an office, they vote. And this ---

BROWN JACKSON: No. I'm talking about the barred office part of this, right.

MURRAY: Exactly. So, the more (ph) offices, if you want to include everybody. First, you have to specify presidential electors because they're not offices, so they wouldn't fall under any office. Second of all, Senators and Representatives don't hold office either. The constitution tells us that under the incompatibility clause, and refers to them as holding seats, not offices.

And so, you want to make sure that there's no doubt that Senators and Representatives are covered, given that the constitution suggests otherwise, you have to include them. The constitution says the presidency holds an office as new members of this court. And so, other high offices, the president, vice president, members of this court ---

BROWN JACKSON: Let me ask you. I appreciate that argument. If we think that the states can't enforce this provision for whatever reason in this context -- in the presidential context, what happens next in this case? I mean, is it done?

MURRAY: If this court concludes that Colorado did not have the authority to exclude President Trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds? I think this case would be done. But I think it could come back with a vengeance because ultimately members of Congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election.

If President Trump wins, about whether or not he's disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him under the electoral count Reform Act. So, President Trump himself urges this court in the first few pages of his brief to resolve the issues on the merits. And we think that the court should do so as well.

BROWN JACKSON: And there's no federal litigation, you would say?

MURRAY: Well, that's correct, because there is no federal procedure for deciding these issues, short of criminal prosecution.

BROWN JACKSON: Thank you.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE: Thank you, counsel. Miss Stevenson?

SHANNON STEVENSON, COLORADO SOLICITOR GENERAL: Mr. Chief Justice?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anderson? No. It's Stevenson. That's right. I'm sorry.

STEVENSON: Mr. Chief Justice and may I please the court. Exercising its far-reaching powers under the electors' clause. Colorado's legislatures specifically directed Colorado's courts to resolve any challenges to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary ballot before Coloradans cast their votes.

Despite this law, petitioner contends that Colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a supermajority act of Congress to remove his legal disability. Under this theory, Colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility, not just for the primary, but through the general election and up to the moment that an ineligible candidate was sworn into office.

Nothing in the constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way. This case was handled capably and efficiently by the Colorado courts, under a process that we've used to decide ballot challenges for more than a century. And as everyone agrees, the court now has the record that it needs to resolve these important issues. I welcome your questions.

CLARENCE THOMAS, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Is there an express provision with respect to that defines what a qualified candidate is?

STEVENSON: No, Your Honor. There's not an express provision when the Colorado Supreme Court looked at this. They looked at the -- need to be qualified. Plus, the fact that this part was ---

THOMAS: So, what does it say that if they've -- if it's not express, how do we get to this issue of qualified candidate?

STEVENSON: What the court -- the Colorado Supreme Court did? And let me -- if I could have a standing objection, I do want to make the argument that you shouldn't review the courts statutory interpretation.

[12:05:00]

THOMAS: No. I'm just looking at the statute.

STEVENSON: What the court did was to say that we have three important provisions in this section that show that candidates have to be qualified. First sip requires that under 1203.2A that a political party that wants to participate has to have a qualified candidate. It also looked at the fact that the comparable write-in-candidates also had to be qualified.

THOMAS: This isn't a write-in-candidate. So, we're actually talking about the participation you have a political party, right. We're not talking about the participation of the other candidate.

STEVENSON: Sure. I think that the fact that the write-in-candidate also had to be qualified was confirmatory of the fact that the political party candidate also had to be qualified. And it wouldn't be otherwise in Congress to read these things differently.

THOMAS: So how is Section 3 a qualification?

STEVENSON: Under the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court ---

THOMAS: No, just on its face.

STEVENSON: A candidate must have -- meet all the criteria for eligibility. And I don't perceive any distinction between being meeting the eligibility criteria and not being disqualified. There I just don't see any meaningful difference between those two things.

THOMAS: Thank you.

ROBERTS: You represent the secretary of state, right?

STEVENSON: That's correct, John.

ROBERTS: If you're the secretary of state somewhere, and someone comes in and says, I think this candidate should be disqualified. What do you do next?

STEVENSON: Administratively, and what the deputy elections director testified to at the hearing is that if they obtained objective knowable information, the secretary can act on that and inform the ----

ROBERTS: So, the secretary first decides whether that's objective knowable information?

STEVENSON: In some instances. In this case, the challenge was actually brought before the candidates' paperwork had even been submitted. And because there had already been a challenge asserted and put into the proper court procedure, the secretary didn't even make that determination because she didn't have the paperwork.

ROBERTS: Well, in another case, where that wasn't a procedure that was filed somebody -- maybe they've got a stack of papers saying, here's why I think this person is guilty of insurrection. A big insurrection is something that, you know, happened down the street, but they say this is still an insurrection. I don't know what the standard is for when it arises to that.

STEVENSON: I think anything that had been presented that level of controversy about one person having a set of facts that they said for this would send this case to the 113 procedure that we use to resolve that ballot challenge issues like that. And if another elector or the individual who brought the information didn't want to bring it, the secretary herself could bring that action.

ROBERTS: Is there a provision for judicial review of secretary of state's action, both in Colorado and perhaps what you know about other states?

STEVENSON: Well, certainly in Colorado, if any action that the secretary takes that anyone wants to challenge, they can use the 113 process to do so. I think states have varying degrees of that there's certainly other states that allow versions of that. And then I don't know whether there are others that are don't, I certainly know that there are some that do.

SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I think we're told that there are states that do not provide for any judicial review of secretaries of states determination. Is that incorrect?

STEVENSON: No, no. I think that's right. And I think there are some states that actually have no mechanism to come to. I think Justice Kagan's point or there's some states that don't have any mechanism to exclude a disqualified candidate from the ballot at all. And I do want to speak to that for just a minute about the actual ---

ALITO: Will there'll be constitutional if there's the secretary of state's determination was final? STEVENSON: I think so under Article 2, the electric clause, Your Honor, that that would be constitutional. States get very broad authority to determine how to run their presidential elections.

ALITO: Could a state enact a statute that provides different rules of evidence and different rules of procedure and different standards of proof for this type of proceeding than for other civil proceedings?

STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor. I believe it could under the same electors' class power.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR: That issue would be determined under perhaps a different constitutional provision, like the due process clause, correct?

STEVENSON: Correct. The balance of the electors' clause are other constitutional constraints, which would include due process equal protection First Amendment.

AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: What's the due process right? Does the candidate have a due process right? What's the liberty interest?

STEVENSON: I think it's not a very precisely defined in the case law. But I think there is a recognition that there is a liberty interest of a candidate, and there is some due process interest and being able to access the ballot.

BARRETT: I thought that was for voters. You think for the candidate to that there's -- that it would be taking something away from the candidate.

STEVENSON: Certainly, yes. And I think a lot of times you see that in the First Amendment context where candidates can have an issue about being on the ballot, but it's sort of a hybrid oftentimes, First Amendment -- 14th Amendment qualifications clause all discussed together.

[12:10:00]

BARRETT: Let me ask you a question about -- just follow up to Justice Alito. You know, these decisions might be made different ways in different states, maybe a secretary of state makes it in one state with very little process or are a process more like Colorado's could be followed by others with our standard of review of the record vary depending on the procedure employed by the state.

STEVENSON: I think this court has tremendous discretion to decide its standard of review. And it might be based on the process that was employed by an individual state. I think you could exercise the independent review of boys Corp (ph) that Mr. Murray talked about. Or you could give deference where you have a full-blown proceeding, like the one here that had all the protections of rules of evidence and cross examination and things like that.

ROBERTS: I'm sorry. You think we should give deference in reviewing the factual record, the legal conclusions what? In other words, we shouldn't undertake a de novo review.

STEVENSON: I don't think that review should be de novo. However, I am amenable to the suggestion that the court would do those Corp type independent review that might provide greater certainty to states around the country as to what the courts position is on the factual record in this case.

ROBERTS: Of course, if it were not de novo review, we could reach disparate results, even on the same record, right?

STEVENSON: I think that's possible.

ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Take it your position, is that this disqualification is really the same as any other disqualification, age or residence or what have you.

STEVENSON: That's correct.

KAGAN: And what if I were to push back on that, and say, well, this disqualification -- number one, it's in the 14th Amendment, and the point of the 14th Amendment was to take away certain powers from the states. Number two, Section 3 itself gives Congress a very definite role, which Mr. Mitchell says, is interfered with by the ability of states to take somebody off the ballot.

And maybe number three, it's just more complicated and more contested. And if you want more political, and why don't all of those things make a difference and are thinking about this qualification as opposed to any other?

STEVENSON: And so, Your Honor. I think the trouble with the categorizing the insurrection issue as necessarily more difficult, this is just an assumption that's coming up, I think because of this case. And again, back to the chief justice's point.

We can have a very easy case under the 14th Amendment with an avowed insurrectionists who -- you know, came in and wrote on his paperwork. I engaged in insurrection in violation of the 14th Amendment, and it would be open and shut case as to whether or not that person would meet the qualifications to be on the Colorado ballot.

With respect to your other questions about the 14th Amendment. My positions are based on the assumption that under the 14th Amendment, the states have the power to enforce Section 3, just like the two other presidential qualifications, and I would defer to the electors' arguments on those points.

ALITO: Suppose the state that does recognize non mutual collateral estoppel makes determination using whatever procedures it decides to adopt that a particular candidate is an insurrectionist. Could that have a cascading effect?

And so, the decision by a court in one state the decision by a single judge whose factual findings are given deference, maybe an elected trial judge would have potentially an enormous effect on the candidates who run for president across the country? Is that something we should be concerned about?

STEVENSON: I think you should be concerned about it, Your Honor. But I think that concern is not as high as maybe it's made up to be and particularly some of the amicus briefs. And again, under Article Two, there is a huge amount of disparity in the candidates that end up on the ballot on different states in every election.

Just this election, there's a candidate who Colorado excluded from the primary ballot, who is on the ballot in other states, even though he is not a natural born citizen. And that's just -- that's a feature of our process. It's not a bug.

And then I think with respect to the decision making -- and you know, we're here so that this court can give us nationwide guidance on some of the legal principles that are involved. I think that reduces the potential amount of disparity that would arise between the states.

And then with respect to the factual record and how that gets issued and implemented. The states have processes for this. And I think we need to let that play out and accept that there may be some messiness of federalism here, because that's what the electors' clause assumes will happen. And if different states apply their principles of collateral estoppel and come to different results, that's OK. And Congress can act at any time if it thinks that it's truly federalism run them up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice Thomas, anything further -- Justice Alito?

ALITO: Well, just one further question. And it's along the same lines of a lot of other questions. We've been told that if what Colorado did here is sustained, other states are going to retaliate? And they're going to potentially exclude another candidate from the ballot. What about that situation?

[12:15:00]

STEVENSON: Your Honor, I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment. Courts will review those decisions. This court may review some of them. But I don't think that this court should take those threats too seriously and its resolution of this case.

ALITO: You don't think that's a serious threat?

STEVENSON: I think we have process ---

ALITO: We should proceed on the assumption that it's not as serious, right?

STEVENSON: I think we have institutions in place to handle those types of allegations.

ALITO: What are those institutions?

STEVENSON: Our states, there are on electoral rules. The administrators who enforce those rules. The courts that will review these decisions and up to this court to ultimately review that decision.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice Sotomayor? Justice Kagan? Justice Kavanaugh? Justice Jackson, anything further. Thank you, counsel. rebuttal Mr. Mitchell?

JONATHAN MITCHELL, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING DONALD TRUMP: Both Mr. Murray and Ms. Stevenson rely heavily on the electros' clause and the authority that it gives the legislature of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. But that prerogative under Article Two must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions.

And Justice Kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the First Amendment, but there are others. A state cannot use its power under Article Two's electors' clause to instruct its presidential electors, only to vote for white candidates that would violate the Equal Protection Clause.

But nor can exercise its power in a manner that would violate the constitutional holding of U.S. term limits against Thornton. And they cannot use the electors' clause as an excuse to impose additional qualifications for the presidency that go beyond what the constitution enumerates in Article Two.

And the problem with what the Colorado Supreme Court has done is they have in a way changed the criteria in Section 3, by making it a requirement that must be met before the candidate who is seeking office actually holds the office, effectively moving forward in time the deadline that the candidate has for obtaining a congressional waiver.

There has still been no answer from the Anderson litigants on how to distinguish the congressional residency cases, where the courts of appeals -- not decisions from this court, but the courts of appeals and applying this court's holding in U.S. term limits have unanimously disapproved state laws requiring congressional candidates to show that they inhabit the state from which they seek election prior to election day.

And they're still in our view is no possible way to distinguish those from the situation below in the Colorado Supreme Court. Mr. Murray also invoked the de facto officer doctrine as a possible way to mitigate the dramatic consequences that would follow from the decision of this court that rejects the rationale of Griffin's case.

And it also agrees with Mr. Murray's contentions that President Trump is disqualified from holding office on account of the events of January 6, and that is covered by Section 3 as an officer of the United States.

This court's recent decisions in Lucia and Arthrex held that officers who were unconstitutionally appointed under Article Two, and that made decisions under the APA that were attacked as invalid. Those decisions were still vacated. And this court did not use any variant of the de facto officer doctrine to salvage the decisions that were made by these unconstitutionally appointed officers.

There is no way to escape the conclusion that if this court rejects Griffin's case, and also agrees with Mr. Morris (ph) construction of Section 3, that every executive action taken by the Trump administration during its last two weeks in office is vulnerable to attack under the APA.

And further, that if President Trump is reelected, and sworn in as the next president, that any executive action that he takes could be attacked in federal court by anyone who continues to believe the President Trump is barred from office under Section 3.

I'm happy to answer any other questions that the court may have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, counsel.

MITCHELL: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The case is submitted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Honorable court is now adjourned until Friday the 16th of February.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN, ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: All right, so the case is submitted. It's signaling the end of arguments. We heard all nine justices asking questions at different points in this case. Let's read the tea leaves with our experts, Laura Coates. I defer to you, but it did not seem to me as though anybody in Colorado should be popping their champagne.

[12:20:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN, CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No. I defer the (Inaudible). And the reason is, you have some pretty clear indications here that the court was not swayed by this idea that Colorado wins. If that's the right term should decide for the entire nation. They talked about it being nationalistic to do so. And also, about this idea -- hold on a second.

How can we decide this without having to determine what it means to engage in an insurrection? How do we get there? How does an individual state make this conclusion and still have the constitution protected? This is not a good sign for the Colorado decision to try to remove them from the ballot. It seems that the court is very much leaning. And I quote what Justice Brown Jackson said. If there's ambiguity, why should we construe it against democracy?

TAPPER: That's interesting. So, Steve, it did seem as though there were a majority of justices, not just the six right leaning justices, if we can still say that -- that are looking for an off ramp, are looking for a reason to not uphold what the Colorado Supreme Court. Did you agree?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN, LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. And, you know, we went into the argument, say, and how much of the argument is going to be about these off ramps? How much is it going to be about insurrection? You know, Jake, by my count, we got 53 minutes into Colorado's argument.

The very, very last question from Justice Jackson was the only question about the merits. Sometimes you walk out of oral argument, not knowing what the courts going to do. Maybe the justices are asking hard questions to both sides. Sometimes you walk out knowing how this is going.

And this really feels like seven, eight, maybe even all nine justices for a very narrow hold him that Colorado by itself can't disqualify a candidate for the presidency without touching what a federal court could do. Without touching what Congress could do. Without touching what states could do to members of Congress to senators.

And I think what we heard in the oral argument over and over again, was justices from across the ideological spectrum, for better or for worse saying this really shouldn't be up to Colorado. Of course, Jake, then the question becomes what happens next. What is left for enforcing the insurrection ban in Section 3 against someone who -- a lot of people believe, violated it?

TAPPER: And Elie, that's not to say that they're going to have a majority of Supreme Court justices saying that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection. They're probably just going to avoid that question. To begin with, they're just saying a state cannot decide a federal issue of such import, right.

ELIE HONIG, CNN, SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's exactly where this is headed, Jake. I'm, you know, we just heard two hours heavy with legalese. We heard about non mutual collateral estoppel cases from the 1800s. To me, it's clear that what's really driving all nine justices here is just the practicality of this, just the real-world impact of this.

If they let Colorado disqualify Donald Trump, then then we could have a scenario where some states disqualify a candidate and others don't. And that would be a problem politically, practically. And they also talked about the possibility that, well, if one state -- one pivotal swing state disqualifies a candidate that could swing the election of the president who serves the entire country.

So as much as there was deep dives there on the legalese and ancient cases. To me, what drives the Supreme Court justices is pragmatism and practicality.

TAPPER: And George Conway, I want you to take a listen to this -- from Justice Elena Kagan appointed by President Obama, certainly a former solicitor general for President Obama, certainly not a conservative by any stretch, but somebody who tries to be fair. Take a listen to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. If you weren't from Colorado and you were from Wisconsin, or you were from Michigan. And it really, you know, what the Michigan secretary of state did, is going to make the difference between -- you know, whether candidate A is elected, or candidate B is elected. Man seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it?

MURRAY: No, Your Honor, because ultimately, it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Was Jason Murray's answer sufficient there to ---

GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: I don't think anything he was going to say it was going to be sufficient, because were there's a will, there's a way. And this court from the get go -- from the first minute of argument made clear, it does not want to go down the path to disqualification and they are going to take the best off ramp they can find.

And it wasn't -- I'm not -- it's not even clear to me. This was any one of the off ramps that the Trump people really offered in the first place. They're not going to buy the officer argument, which is, I think, a bad argument. The idea just to -- right, the argument ---

TAPPER: You've been listening to so much legal ---

CONWAY: I know, the president ---

TAPPER: This is in court to me -- they're not going to buy the argument that since the presidency isn't mentioned explicitly in this amendment that it doesn't cover it. OK.

CONWAY: They're not buying that -- they're not buying this the argument that the 14th Amendment can only be enforced by Congress. They're saying, they're going to -- right, as Steve said, a much narrower opinion saying, the states cannot individually do this and state functionaries through the courts ---

[12:25:00]

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: To the president. So, what we have -- but the problem is -- I mean, so that's the offering. They created there -- they're creating their own special little off ramp. They're building up -- they're building it out themselves. They don't have the plans for it. Yet, they're going to have to figure that out over the next few weeks.

And the funny thing about it is, we don't know where the exits going to end. Because the question of well, what happens if he isn't insurrectionist? And you do -- the states don't disqualify him. Well, he gets -- and gets elected. What do you do then? It's not clear. So, we don't know where this off ramp goes. But they're happy to just get off the highway.

COATES: Anyway, you spoke about the idea of legalese. But you know how you knew in a moment that this court was well aware that the world was listening when Chief Justice Roberts tried to break down. You mean, this case -- you're talking about term limits, you don't mean term limits in that. He's well aware of the practicality as to who's listening and why.

KASIE HUNT, CNN, CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: And how important it is for everyday Americans. And I was struck listening to Elena Kagan right there as -- and, Jake, as you were describing her as someone who was appointed by President Obama. Yes, they're speaking in legalese. But she sounded like a lot of elected Democrats often sound when they talk about this.

If you listen to Gavin Newsom of California, right, California had to make this decision. And they basically said, you know, we're going to wait. But the idea was, they were going to basically leave Trump on the ballot. They are making the argument. They're staying away from this by and large, at least the most competitive, I would say campaign minded Democrats from this idea that he should be banned from the ballot. And they are saying instead that he should -- Donald Trump should be beaten at the polls. And I heard that in Elena Kagan's argument.

TAPPER: And Jamie, one of the other things we've been talking a lot about Bush v. Gore, the decision that the U.S. Supreme Court made in 20 -- I'm sorry, in year 2000. And one of the things that was not great about that decision was when they basically said, we're making this ruling once and nobody can ever speak of it again.

This is not precedent. That's it. We're just saying, this is an extraordinary circumstance. That's the opposite approach that this court is taking. This court is looking down the road, not just at Donald Trump, but how this could be used in the future against any -- you know, if you don't agree well -- we'll come back to you, Jamie -- Jamie, go ahead.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: let me just -- before George says, I'm wrong.

TAPPER: You're right.

GANGEL: That is a case where we saw the court get involved in the election. And if we read the room correctly, and it certainly sounds like -- as we've said, at least a dozen times, they were looking for an off ramp today. But let's go to a word that we use with Donald Trump a lot, which is chaos because they have their off ramp. But as George said, we don't know where that's going. Who is going to decide this at the end.

TAPPER: All right, let me interrupt. I'm sorry, because the man at the center of all of this, Donald Trump is speaking. We're going to listen because this case has involved him.

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I consider it to be more election interference by the Democrats. That's what they're doing. The good news is we're leading virtually every bowl. We're leading -- I don't even know if we have any more. I'm not sure that we even have a Republican candidate. Somebody running with not making any impact.

So, as you know, we won Iowa. We won New Hampshire in records. And each one a record. We think we're going to do very well. I'm heading out right now to Nevada for the caucus and the caucuses. And I think we can do very well there. All polls indicate we're in the 90s, maybe more than the 90s. We certainly did well in a primary that didn't matter where they voted very nicely.

And we have tremendous support from the people of our country. They hate what's happening at the border. They hate what's happening -- just generally, we're not a respected country anymore. We're left that all over the world. They're laughing. And they hate what's happening. They hate seeing it. They love our country. They want it to come back. And we're going to do that if you think about it had the results of the election, then (Inaudible).

And you wouldn't have the Ukrainian situation with Russia. You wouldn't have had -- we would not have had an attack on Israel, which was so horrible. You would not have had inflation. You wouldn't have China talking about Taiwan. You wouldn't have any of the problems that we have today. And you certainly had a broke Iran (ph) and now you have a very rich Iran. Iran was broken when I left. They had no money to give to Hamas.

TAPPER: OK. I think we've gotten all the legal analysis. We're going to get out of President Trump. You know, it's odd there because this was actually an opportunity for him to come out and say ---

(CROSSTALK)

CONWAY: It's not because he wants to talk about himself. He doesn't want to talk about the Supreme Court. And say, oh, the Supreme Court did a nice job today. He just wants to talk about what's on his mind about himself.

GANGEL: Can I just say, someone didn't tell him that this sounded like good news for him today. Clearly, I mean it wasn't just the rambling sort of campaign speech.

[12:30:00]