up to the reality of the situation. donors at harvard in particular have withheld now a billion dollars in funding demanding changes. i am actually optimistic these are guys that are intact, finance and other business professions very busy people they were not paying attention. now they are paying attention. now they are reading america's culculture revolution, my book u mention. now they are going to say it no more money until you clean up your act. no more racism against white and asian students. no more racism against jews on campus. and no more nonsense. it's time to restore truth, not racialist ideology as the highest principal at harvard university and beyond. >> are you concerned msnbc, cnn, "new york times," "washington post" actually have people on the payroll hosts, contributors, some so-called reporters and commentators who are promoting this anti-semitism this racism, the segregation on her college
up to the reality of the situation. donors at harvard in particular have withheld now a billion dollars in funding demanding changes. i am actually optimistic these are guys that are intact, finance and other business professions very busy people they were not paying attention. now they are paying attention. now they are reading america's culturculture revolution, my bou mention. now they are going to say it no more money until you clean up your act. no more racism against white and asian students. no more racism against jews on campus. and no more nonsense. it's time to restore truth, not racialist ideology as the highest principal at harvard university and beyond. >> are you concerned msnbc, cnn, "new york times," "washington post" actually have people on the payroll hosts, contributors, some so-called reporters and commentators who are promoting this anti-semitism this racism, the segregation on her college
up to the reality of the situation. donors at harvard in particular have withheld now a billion dollars in funding demanding changes. i am actually optimistic these are guys that are intact, finance and other business professions very busy people they were not paying attention. now they are paying attention. now they are reading america's culturculture revolution, my bou mention. now they are going to say it no more money until you clean up your act. no more racism against white and asian students. no more racism against jews on campus. and no more nonsense. it's time to restore truth, not racialist ideology as the highest principal at harvard university and beyond. >> are you concerned msnbc, cnn, "new york times," "washington post" actually have people on the payroll hosts, contributors, some so-called reporters and commentators who are promoting this anti-semitism this racism, the segregation on her college
not covered by this amendment, in which case these are all gone. this whole theory is dead at -- >> at that point, nobody keeps suing on this, because the supreme court is no longer -- >> the highest court, that's what the rule of law means. we are a rule of law country. we are still a rule of law country. and regardless of, you know, who is running for office and the support for them, the conversation just a moment ago with tim snyder, but we will follow that ruling. >> there is an argument that trump is making in this particular instance that some political commentators are making, most legal people are not making this argument, and that it is unsound for the courts to make a decision about who the president of the u.s. should be. so, michael luttig, they tried, and you, and other people have, that the law is the law. the supreme court needs to interpret it. the law says, if he's an eligible to run, that's what it is. the argument that you should just let him run so that people can decide is not a strong legal argument. >> the problem with that
6th happened, there was no doubt about the truth. at the time, even republican members of congress and fox news commentators publicly and privately condemned the attack. as one republican senator said, trump's behavior was embarrassing and humiliating for the country. but now, that same senator and those same people have changed their tune. >> he didn't name him, but lindsey graham on january 8th, 2021, said he had never been so humiliated and embarrassed for the country. he spoke in palpable frustration over how his long time ally handled the riot. what do you make of the universal capitulation to trump by republican house members and united states senators like lindsey graham, three years later? they're all now with him, endorsing him, supporting him. >> well, joy, that's an absolute
tuesday. are you comfortable with that timeline? >> that's the timeline we asked for. we want to make sure that the court has the time necessary to read the briefs, hear the arguments, issue a decision well in advance of super tuesday. and by setting the schedule they did today, they did exactly that. we should have a decision well before super tuesday. >> and do you think, ultimately, on the big question here that the supreme court could rule in favor of colorado without actually weighing in on this big issue of whether or not trump engaged in insurrection? >> i think they can rule in favor of colorado with a thoughtful decision from the colorado supreme court doing just that. a lot of commentators have said, it's an easy call. but in order for us to prevail, they do need to find that donald trump violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, which requires, among other things that he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution.
it wrong, and assuming it's not just a sort of a state procedural rule that they will rule on. but they said for instance that the office of the president is not covered by this amendment, in which case these are all gone. this whole theory is dead at -- >> at that point, nobody keeps suing on this, because the supreme court is no longer -- >> the highest court, that's what the rule of law means. we are a rule of law country. we are still a rule of law country. and regardless of, you know, who is running for office and the support for them, the conversation just a moment ago with tim snyder, but we will follow that ruling. >> there is an argument that trump is making in this particular instance that some political commentators are making, most legal people are not making this argument, and that it is unsound for the courts to make a decision about who the president of the u.s. should be. so, michael luttig, they tried, and you, and other people have, that the law is the law. the supreme court needs to interpret it. the law says, if he's an eligible to run, that's what it is. the argument that you should just let him run so that people can decide is not a strong legal argument.
he's a threat to democracy. they've weaponized government. he's saying ooi'm a threat to democracy. he's a threat to d-d-democracy. >> joining me now, cnn political commentator paul beg a la and shermichael singleton. i have to ask if you thought the days of going before the belt, is it presidential and role model behavior, ladies and gentlemen, exhibit "a" from what you've just seen. paul, you called the speech today from biden, biden at his best. why? >> because -- well, first, he needs to thank donald trump for setting the bar so low. all these right wing commentators say biden is feeble. you saw the president mocking his speech impediment. he was powerful. he was passionate. he was forceful. by the way, he was really effective. he took it right to mr. trump, and you saw it definitely hurt
tonight, president biden gets the first major address of his 2024 campaign on the eve of the three year anniversary of the january 6th attack on our capitol. biden spoke just miles away from valley forge, where george washington immobilized troops nearly three centuries ago in the revolutionary war. the president framed this election as just as much as a fight for our nation's democracy as washington's was back then. to biden, this election is a fight between truth and lies, and that stakes in that fight are as high as they can be. to biden, this is about the future of our democracy itself. >> when the attack on january 6th happened, there was no doubt about the truth. at the time, even republican members of congress, and fox news commentators, publicly and privately condemned the attack. as one republican senator said, trump's behavior was
possibilities. this is a political question that only congress can decide, for example, or a ruling that it is not apply to the president. or that congress needs to have some sort of executing legislation before this becomes actionable. there are a lot of different issues at work here that could give the supreme court a way out without squarely addressing that substantive issue. >> so then, paul, how do you think the originalist's interpretation of the 14th amendment will factor into how the conservative justices will rule. >> so, jonathan, the colorado supreme court is not filled with members of the democratic national committee. they are seasoned judges who wrote up a 100-page plus opinion specifically marketed to the conservatives on the supreme court. the colorado supreme court opinion utilized originalist argument, textualists argument, that the conservatives put to reach their holding. what happened on january six was an insurrection within the meaning of section three, and that president trump is an insurrectionist, who is that's disqualified from office, based on the tax and the original meaning of section three. >> barbara, donald trump's