Little january 6th insurrection. The highest court in the land today kept him on the ballot in a ruling a dodges the facts of january 6th and trumps role in it. Instead, the Supreme Court handed trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality. The justices say that states do not have the power to bar candidates from running for federal office. They say, quote, because the constitution makes Congress Rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal Office Holders and candidates, we reverse. Theyre referring to the decision by the Colorado StateSupreme Court. Now, that court found that trump did engage in insurrection by trying to overturn the will of the voters by any means possible, including violence, and that section 3 of the 14th Amendment does, in fact, apply to the presidency. Now, the Supreme Courts decision today does not touch on either the question of whether trump is or is not an insurrectionist, or whether the text of section 3 applies to him. Instead, it says that only congress has the power to do anything or to enforce the 14th Amendment. Colorado secretary jenna griswell, point out, if we had a functioning congress, we would not t be in this situation today. The liberal justices blasted the majority for closing the door on the possibility of Federal Courts Disqualifying Trump or any other candidate who would engage in an insurrection, writing, quote, section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed role in our democracy. The American People have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office. And that is a great and a glorious thing. The man who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment had witnessed an insurrection and rebellion to defend slavery and they wanted to ensure that those who had participated in the insurrection and in possible future insurrections could not return to prominent roles. Today the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming the president. Although we agree that colorado cannot enforce section 3, we protest the majoritys effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Thats where we start today with some of our most favorite experts and friends. Former lead investigator is back with us, he testified in the colorado case when it was in front of the states court. Senior editor for slate is back with us. With me at the table, once again, former top official at the Department Of Justice and msnbc legal analyst Andrew Weissmann is here and Princeton University professor and distinguished political scholar at the table. So nice to see you, my friends. Let me start with Andrew Weissmann. What did the Supreme Court say and do today . So they did a lot more than we thought they would do. Everyone after the Oral Argument thought that trump would be allowed to be on the ballot in colorado, and frankly, any of the other states. And just explain why we knew that. Because the argument a lot of times people say you really cant tell from an argument. There was just no friendly question and you had no friendly question, you had a legitimate argument, and you had sort of the atmospherics of the court being we dont want to be the ones deciding this. The reason they went further and the reason this is a 54 decision is where it sort of went. Everyone agreed he can be on the ballot in colorado and that the states cannot decide this. The reason its 54, and notably the men versus the women, which was just a remarkable split, was that they said this applies not just to the presidency, but all federal Office Holders. The big sort of 54 split was that the majority said only its not that the states cant do it, its that only congress can do it. So youre picking the one institution that is completely dysfunctional and isnt going to do it. So if you want the big picture, you want to read this provision out of the constitution, the only way to do it is to stay congress has to enact legislation to implement section 3. No room for the courts, the federal courts to step in. Thats the part where Amy Coney Barrett said, why do we need to reach that . You are needlessly inflaming in a Political Year the issue, when our job in the court should be to try to just decide this issue and lower the volume. Lowering the volume by not weighing in on whether he is or is not an insurrectionist . Yeah, it doesnt touch the core facts. The Supreme Court decides questions of law, not questions of fact. They found that section 3 of the 14th Amendment could not be invoked by a state government, it has to be invoked by congress, some of the justices went further and said it will take enabling legislation. What america should take away is thats a question of law, not a question of fact. The Supreme Court didnt find that colorado was wrong in its finding that a former president engaged in insurrection. They actually found that he did, several states have similarly found, much as our committee recommended. And those are the allegations, the factual allegations that are going to come before federal juries barring a Supreme Court ruling on an Immunity Question down the road. Its a victory for the president because it keeps them on the ballot. It just doesnt touch really the core issue, whether or not what he did on and whether january 6th was criminal. We found that it was, Special Counsel has alleged that it is, and ideally a jury will get to decide that question in some months. Ideally. Let me show you what a judge said on this show, were down in the weeds but i think our viewers alongside me, weve all earned our honorary law degrees. So its a little technical. Consider yourself warned. Here is the judge offering a different legal analysis. It is not necessary in order for the former president to be disqualified, or for any other person who comes within the ambit of section 3 to be disqualified that he or she have been convicted of an insurrection or rebellion, nor is it necessary that the congress of the United States have found that the former president or any other person have engaged in nurkz or rebellion against the constitution of the United States. Thats what we call in constitutional law, the selfexecuting character, if you will. Of section 3. It does not require a congressional finding, and it does not require a criminal conviction. I guess whats so amazing, ive been back in the chair six days and this is the second day where another body is i guess its the same body that stunt doesnt want to deal with the insurrection thing. Trump carried out an insurrection, by november it will be part of his convention video. Its who he is, hes running as an insurrectionist, hes running on pardoning his fellow insurrectionists, the accomplices in congress are into it and those who werent are retiring or resigning. The Supreme Court is, maybe that didnt happen, maybe not, the voters will get to see the facts in the case against him. Its such an interesting problem, because on the one hand, you have the court performing what looks like some version of institutional humility, who are we to decide whether an insurrection happened, who are we to decide these complicated questions. Congress has to decide. That looks like its a kind of democracy expanding democracy affirming move and its very much, i think, in line with the were umpires, balls and strikes people, we do as little as possible. I guess i would just note two things in response to that. One is, and this comes up in the concurrence that the three liberals offer, which is they literally main check dobbs and say all you needed to do was do what chief Justice Roberts said we do in dobbs, which is decide as little as possible. The court clearly did not do that today. They foreclosed a whole bunch of different avenues. But, also, this is where its really sneaky, the court doesnt actually tell us what that enabling legislation would look like. So even if congress could shake it off, get it together, write some kind of meaningful legislation that could, in fact, knock an insurrectionist off the ballot, the Court Reserves to itself the power to tell us whether or not thats okay. So it is both the most Bragging Humility and humble bragging in the history. Its strange for them to want to stay out of it, yet putting a sum on the scale for donald trump. Im not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination you say that every day. But i keep thinking about the historical parallels. Im thinking about the civil war amendments and radical reconstruction between 1863 and 1877 and the context of the 14th Amendment in response to Andrew Johnsons refusal to hold the south accountable. I mean, we have literally traitors who are running for office, who are taking hold of the reins of power in the south, after leaving over 600,000 people on the battlefield dead. And people are, like, no, we have to hold these folks accountable. So the civil war amendments emerged in the context of section 3, it emerges to hold folk accountable. Here we have in this context hence tans to hold him accountable, and its a historical echo that screams with irony. I dont want to make it relative, but the thing that is so egregious is that at least there there was some sense of the south will rise again, defending a cultural rival. Here its all a lie, and they know it because they went back to congress on the same ballots. Yeah, again, were at this inflection point, and whats so striking about the moment in the context of the collapse of radical reconstruction is that we went into a dark period that didnt open up until the mid20th century. Here we are at that moment, and the courts played a central role in ushering that dark period. Here we are in this moment again, and it seems to me im not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the court is playing another central role in ushering the shadows. Its not the only echo, right . What jack smith has charged also draws on some of the legal toolkit that emerged from this stain on our countrys history. So i wanted to somewhat complicate the picture, which is you do have the three liberal justices joining in the idea that the states should not be able to do this. They wouldnt go far as to say it should only be congress, but theres no way to just dismiss the case unless you think the three liberal justices got the law wrong. They go along with the actual principle here. But it is 54 explain that. Its about chaos. Exactly. The idea is that everyone, all nine say we just dont even though its been the system so far, nobody has paid attention to it because it hasnt involved a major candidate, and now that its sort of come to the fore and theres a major candidate, they said we cant have each state deciding for themselves when its a federal office. When its a federal office, there needs to be a federal decision. Thats something that all nine justices agree on. So its hard to just say, oh, this is just a politicized Supreme Court. Where i think there is a correct view, and thats where i think the 54 part of this is relevant, the context were in is a pending case now where the former president is saying that he is immune, and you cant look at this decision without knowing what theyre doing in that case. They have given him not one win and were going to split the baby and give him a loss. The stay that is in effect now, which they are slow walking and were not even hearing the arguments for two months on a case that is ready to be argued. Everyone knows this. There is a stay that is delaying the case that was going to start today. So these are two wins that are being given by this court. Theres no way that the three justices in the sort of essentially the dissent today, think that the timing is appropriate. Theres no reason to have delayed it. So you really end up with a Supreme Court, even if you want to think theres some merit to this case, its hard to disaggregate it and not see the court in its two cases saying, what can we do to help donald trump . We are going to make sure that this will only be decided not in a court of law, but in the court of spin and disinformation where donald trump lives, and there will actually not be sort of legal accountability. The court is removing that. Either in this decision or in its Immunity Decision, because they basically are saying were not hearing that and were sitting on that. So the chances of it going in court could be zero. And i would say theres a possibility theyre oblivious to that, but we know theyre not, theyre some of the most voracious consumers of their own press than any other american institution. Its one of the great mysteries, for those of us who thought and i know weve been talking about this for two years now, that the court was sensitive to plummeting approval ratings, to a complete lack of confidence from the public. We all thought, this is a court that knows how to pump the brakes, this is a court that knows how to do a little Razzle Dazzle to confuse us about the fact that it certainly is carrying water, i think now we can say, for one person and doesnt carry water for multiple criminal defendants ever, some of whom are wrongfully accused. And i think part of the answer is what andrew just said, which is theres an amazing split in this decision. I also think its not an accident that its the women who are taking the position that this is really a question of institutional integrity, confidence in the institution, Justice Barrett writes for herself alone essentially saying some version of, dont worry, were not mad at each other, were all cool here, lets take the temperature down. So i think there is a really interesting split between those who are deeply worried about how this impacts the institution and the sort of Public Integrity and reputation of the institution, and the folks in that kind of majority, the folks who signed and say nothing else, who dont seem to be bothered at all about the fact that the election is coming, theyre not making Proclamation Bsby the insurrection. And, by the way, weve got major gun cases, major deregulatory cases, hurtling at us. Theyre all going to get decided in june at the same time. I want to stay on this theme of what the public is left to sift through and i want to spend a lot of time on the evidence developed in the most transparent manner by the probe. Ill send some time with tim on the other side of a quick break. No one is going anywhere. Still to come, the longtime lieutenant of the Trump Organization, the business side, Allen Weisselberg, is likely headed back to Rikers Island all in service of protecting his longtime xboss, donald j. Trump. Another person close to the expresident Pleading Guilty for lying under oath. What it might mean for Donald Trumps first criminal trial in new york that gets under way in three weeks. Plus, President Joe Biden preparing for an ugly political fight come november. In an interview out today, President Joe Biden saying we should all be prepared for donald trump not to concede should he lose again, adding that losers who are losers are never graceful. More from that interview just ahead. Later in the broadcast, our autocracy in america series continues with someone who personally had the job of briefing then President Donald Trump on the most Sensitive National security secrets in the land inside the oval office. The Principal Deputy director with decades of experience in the intelligence committee, with warning how a Second Trump Administration will compromise the nations computer. We continue after a quick break. Dont go anywhere. Where. Yep, tough day at work, nice cruise will sort you right out. When im riding, im not even thinking about my painful cavity. Well, you shouldnt ignore that. And every time i get stressed about having to pay my bills, i just hop on the bike, man. Oh, come on, man, you got to pay your bills. You dont have to worry about anything when youre protected by americas numberone motorcycle insurer. Well, you definitely do. Those things arent related, so. Ah, yee oh, that is a vibrating pain. Her uncles unhappy. Ah, yee im sensing an underlying issue. Its tmobile. It started when we got him under a new plan. But then they unexpectedly unraveled their price lock guarantee. Which has made him, a bit. Unruly. You called yourself the uncarrier. You sing about price lock on those commercials. The price lock, the price lock. So, if you could change the price, change the name its not a lock, i know a lock. So how can we undo the damage . We could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. Their connection is unreal. And we could all unexperience this whole session. Okay, thats uncalled for. Well see what happens in the courts. If you look at the select committees work, we made a criminal referral with respect to the part of the 14th Amendment that talks about providing aid and comfort to an