And Paul Reed.
We were
listening to
this entire argument together
and what she was talking about
is great context there
with Justice Kagan.
You were on Jackson,
the newest member of the Supreme
because they never even
really got to the question
or they never got to the questio
of the insurrection itself
until right at the end of those
first set of arguments
with Trump's attorney.
We have that moment.
I just want to
remind everyone
what she what she was asking
the Trump attorney
and what Trump's attorney said
about that.
What we said in her opening
brief was President Trump
did not engage in any act
that can possibly be characteriz
as insurrection. Right.
So why would not not be?
And what is your argument
that it's not your reply
brief
says that it wasn't
because I think you say
it did not involve an organized
to overthrow the government.
So that's one of many reasons.
But for an insurrection,
there needs to be an organized,
concerted effort
to overthrow the government
of the United States through vio
And this at some point
is that a chaotic effort to over
the government is not an insurre
We didn't concede that.
It's an effort
to overthrow the government eith
Justice Jackson Right.
None of these criteria were met.
This was a riot.
It was not an insurrection.
The events were shameful,
criminal, violent.
All of those things,
but did not qualify as insurrect
As that term is used in Section
That's notable because this
is the first time, really
the only time we heard this ques
of whether this was an insurrect
come up.
And it's not surprising that it
Stand your ground action.
Who brought it up
because she was actually still
on a federal trial judge
when that first batch of arrests
was made in early 2021.
And she oversaw some cases,
at least one of those hearings.
Yes, she made it clear
how serious she thought
this insurrection was,
what a threat she believed
it was to democracy.
Based on the questions
we heard today from the justices
it's unlikely
they're going to touch this
as a collective.
But here she was
at least able
to get on the record with this.
And it's notable
that you heard Trump's lawyer
at least concede that this was c
He's not saying his client
engaged in criminal conduct,
but of course,
hundreds of people have been cha
So that was an important moment.
You can tell
that was an intentional move by
Yeah.
And also,
you know,
he noted that they're simultaneo
making the argument
that Trump has presidential immu
What else stood out to you
as we were listening to Trump's
as he came back to rebut the arg
that he heard
from the plaintiff's attorney
and from the Colorado solicitor
What stuck out to me is
this is the best hearing
that the Trump legal team
has had in recent memory.
And it's not just because
the justices seem sympathetic
to their case.
It's also just how this was hand
Jonathan Mitchell, again,
he's very experienced before the
six time,
but he focused solely on the law
His client didn't factor into th
You know,
we have seen very experienced
lawyers, great lawyers
in federal courtrooms
sometimes saying things
that otherwise they wouldn't
if they weren't representing
the former president,
appearing to play to an audience
sometimes getting in
contentious exchanges with judge
Caitlin, today we saw none of th
Even when a justice appeared
a little skeptical of his argume
he was able to manage up on them
that didn't make it contain
anxious at all.
It was really interesting to not
how he focused on the merits.
He focused on the law
and remained respectful,
a complete contrast
to what we've seen
in the two civil cases
recently in New York.
And it'll be interesting to see
going forward,
is this going to be the new appr
that they take to legal proceedi
Let lawyers go in and do serious
disciplined work inside the cour
And if the former president
wants to go outside the steps of
a Lago and argue about an insurr
and score political points,
he can do that because today, le
this is likely going to pay off.
Also, I'm skeptical
that that's going to be the case
But hope springs
eternal since we've been coverin
so many different iterations
of Trump attorneys during our ti
But it was also interesting to s
how when
Trump was not in that courtroom
he did or in the Supreme Court t
he did have
some of his political aides
and some of his attorneys
who were not arguing this in the
But when he came out just now
and was initially speaking about
he didn't seem to
to resonate with what
you just said there,
that this was a more successful
compared to the other days
that we've seen with his attorne
Yeah, he's
probably just, you know, ticked
that we're here at all. Right.
But this is also a campaign spee
He's fundraising. Exactly.
Because he called it, as you hea
this is election interference.
Even though you have a day
where a Supreme Court
where he appointed
a third of the justices
seeming to take his side,
perhaps even nine
zero, he's arguing
that this is somehow
election interference.
That is an argument
that he has made across
civil litigation
and criminal cases
here at the Supreme Court.
So it really didn't
seem to be a reflection of how h
the argument
his problem went is
probably what he's going to say
no matter what.
I think it's also
revealing into the inside
of how
he sees
the Supreme Court in and of itse
because he has been quite wary
of how
they will treat him in the way
that he kind of sees
how legal processes play out
when it regards him personally.
I mean, his attorneys have made
that he does expect
some kind of sense of loyalty,
I believe is the word that only
now they use
because they are three justices
that he nominated to the Supreme
But but he is a bit approaching
this from what our reporting is,
maybe not this case,
but certainly the presidential i
one with wariness
of how
they will rule ultimately
if they do take that case up.
Yeah, it's wild to think
you've appointed a third of the
You're going to go up against
with immunity.
He should be he should be nervou
if the justices will take that a
and if he would prevail here
on ballot eligibility as we saw,
they seemed to signal
to suggest that they will likely
will in his favor.
Immunity, even sources in
and around his legal team will c
it's not their strongest argumen
The idea that the president
has absolute
immunity,
that is not something
that is likely to prevail
at the highest court.
The loss of the trial court,
the loss of the district court.
But really, it's almost
not as much about the merits as
just the possibility
that they might take it up.
That's all they really need,
because the strategy
is really about trying to delay
that federal case
until after the 2024 election,
because, as you know,
if Trump is reelected,
he likely, through his attorney
could make both of Jack
Smith's federal prosecutions go
So while he should feel really g
about what happened
today, legally
succeeding likely on the merits
through this approach
going forward,
there is an enormous amount
of legal peril that he is facing
And even though he's supported
appointed a third of this court,
it's unlikely
they're going to be able
to help him much.
But they have a new deadline alr
You just heard the court
and they say, we'll see you back
February 16th.
They have a new deadline
already on Monday
that immediately
his legal team is dealing with.
They have to file that emergency
appeal to the Supreme Court,
which we know they're going to d
What have you heard about
how they're going to approach th
Because all of their arguments
that they made
in front of the other courthouse
just knocked down the far down
the road from here,
were rejected by that
federal appeals court,
including by Republican appointe
So now this is the question,
what are you going to do?
Because normally what they would
they would ask the entire circui
to hear their case.
They have that option.
Do they think they're going to w
Probably not.
But again, if the goal is delay,
that's your next step.
But the way the circuit decided
they made that a little more dif
for them to do and box them in
to tell the Supreme Court by Mon
that they intend to appeal that.
I was asked by the people
who are going to work on this
to leave them alone
about exactly what they're going
And they said the same thing to
I've already texted
that we're already texting them
to get the scoop on Supreme Cour
What are you going to do?
So going forward, they need to m
do they want to fight
the fact that the circuit has sa
you know, you really can't do on
says who?
Why doesn't the former president
have that right?
Do they want to litigate that gu
They might,
but I don't think they thought
through the mechanics
of how they're going to go forwa
But the big question,
I think, is going to be
how long does it take
either the circuit
and or the Supreme Court
to get back to him
on what they're going to do?
Because every day is a gift
for Trump and his legal team.
Every day it takes them to decid
That's one day closer to the Nov
2024 election
and one day that it's less
likely Jack Smith get to prosecu