democracy they were defending the legislators who are at the capitol that day who had a mob sect on them. >> and this is where republicans have completely lost the plot, mean it is like the alitos flag at their house. it is completely upside down in terms of what, what the republican party has decided that it is going to side with the insurrectionists actively and you're going to see a lot of signs in here, a lot rhetoric about backing the blue. and that is going to exclude people who backed the blue against insurrections and instead they're going to sing a national anthem. to defend the people who attacked the capitol that day. it's not just politics, like, and this goes back to the conversation we're having about ronald reagan and joe biden right now, these people this maga, republicans, that movement, they don't like america, donald trump doesn't like america. one of the characteristics of the republican party that i was attracted to is that it thought america was a good place. we did things right here. we would never do something like storm
felony charge dismissed. and the conservative majority of justices sounded skeptical of the charge and sympathetic to fisher's argument that that obstruction law should only apply to evidence tampering, and not, say, a congressional proceeding to serve a final action. here's the thing. hundreds of accused and convicted of insurrections have been charged with this particular obstruction charge, and so is donald trump. when the court appeared to hold in oral arguments yesterday a sudden concern about the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, the possible use of this statutory charge by the government to overreach and criminalize it, which itself would be a perfectly legitimate concern if it weren't for the fact that on monday, the day before those very same oral arguments, the same supreme court once again acted by not acting, and allowed a lower court ruling to stand that would effectively make it legally impossible to organize protests in three states, particularly black lives matter protests. in that case, a louisiana police officer was injured by a protester, and he sued the man
just this weekend the number three republican in the house leadership, elise stefanik of new york, talked about the insurrections as martyrs for the maga gauze. >> if i have concerns about the treatment of january six hostages. i have concerns. we have a role in congress of oversight over our treatments of prisoners. i believe that we are seeing the weaponization of the federal government against not just president trump, but against conservatives. >> hostages? she referred to them as hostages, comparing them to the men women and children being held by hamas. that is how she is comparing the u.s. government's prosecution under due process with people that violated the law. the congresswoman also refused to commit to accept the outcome of the next election. >> what about 2024? >> we will see. if this is illegal invalid election. >> i don't hear you committed to certifying the election results. we only commit to certifying the results if the president
president. >> that's not illegal. >> but this historian said that he was not referring to absolute presidential immunity. >> he was talking about a narrow band of national security and domestic security operations, which, for a period of time, could be done in the united states and it not be illegal but even that narrow band, which does not include insurrections, and it does not include burglarizing the democratic national committee or your opponents headquarters, that narrow band, ultimately was removed i congress. >> many legal analyst believe that the supreme court will weigh in on whether donald trump has presidential immunity. the question is when because there are of course appeals that play in these cases. to our viewers, thanks for watching. i'm with blitzer in the situation room.
in the house and the senate who voted to overturn donald trump's election loss. at eight pm on january the six, after the mob had been cleared, congress reconvened to officially certify the results of the election. the very process, the insurrections is trying to stop. and these 147 republicans voted against the certification. because of the baseless voter fraud claims, spread by donald trump and his minions, including scott perry. almost every single one of her 127 people are still serving in congress. and no matter what happens in the 24 presidential election, just remember, these lawmakers who try to overturn democracy will still be running our government. one of the lawmakers who have worked to protect democracy, since january six, is the representative stacey plaskett. the day after the insurrection, she released a statement saying quote, in this country, government the people and
constitution forbids that kind of activity. the plain letter of the constitution forbids insurrections from taking office. yet, somehow, that is an open question that we are going to have to discuss over the next seven months perhaps. my biggest fear is what happens if the supreme court does not rule on this? the court did have an opportunity to rule on the emoluments clause previously, but they said it was moot because when the cases came to the court, trump was no longer in office. yet, behold, he is going to be most likely a candidate for the highest office in the land once again. these issues are hard, and we're in this position, especially regarding january 6th, because people have ducked them. congress ducked it. they had the opportunity to conflict donald trump and bar him from office. they didn't. now, we're talking about it three years later.
fewest issues that they can. we have the different issues that need to be resolved. they laid out this question, knowing whether you in the united states is quote, an officer. this sounds silly and obvious. this is what the constitution says in its language. this is what they intend to mean. they know who decides on these questions and insurrections. these are very difficult, very complex. this is theoretical on these questions that they have to sort out. >> can i think about something? they were just together on the set worrying about the integrity and stature of the supreme court. i think the fact that the supreme court issued this every day, we were just getting it done last night. this is already the first step towards getting clarity and the law. they recognize that voters need to know who they can cast a ballot for. it is acting quickly. this inspires confidence, and
that. i think you have to look at the language. and of course the supreme court in its current make-up is very big on original textualism. and so what was the common public understanding at the time of the 14th amendment, and there's certainly some debate at that time that said we want to make sure this doesn't apply just to our current situation with the civil war but all insurrections that may come in the future. it's a hard question, but i don't think donald trump's brief tackles it with the seriousness it deserves. >> let's just put some meat on those bones. when this amendment was written and ratified after the civil war, there was a pretty clear idea what rebellion looked like because it had been the civil war. is donald trump's team leaning into the fact you can't compare january 6th to the civil war, or he didn't raise an army? i've heard all of these sorts of arguments. >> yes. i mean they say this was not an insurrection. an insurrection only stands if you're waging war in the united
discussions getting a lot of ink these days about whether it would be more satisfying or less satisfying to have donald trump disqualified versus defeated at the polls? >> i mean it's an irrelevant question legally speaking. at this point we should be focused on who is qualified to run and who's not qualified to run. section 3 of the 14th amendment is not some kind of aberrational, eccentric provision in the constitution. i count more than a half dozen different provisions in the constitution that specifically target insurrectionary activities. so like take article 1, section 8, clause 15, which says congress has the power to call for militias from the states in order to suppress insurrections. you look at the guarantee clause in article 4 which says congress
clause 15, which says that congress has the power to call forth the militias from the states in order to suppress insurrections. you look at the republican guaranteed clause in article four, which says that congress shall guarantee the people of the state a republican form of government that assists them and putting down domestic violence. you look at the treason clause, the only place where crime is defined in the constitution. a consist of levying arms against the union, or adhering to the enemies here of. there -- even jefferson davis, so interesting, the people say that section three does not apply to the 14th amendment. section -- jefferson davis, when he was tried for treason in virginia, claimed, unsuccessfully, that he could not be tried for treason, because he already was guilty under section three at the 14th amendment, and, therefore, it was being punished by not being able to serve as president. of course, it's not double jeopardy, because it's not even a criminal punishment, under