Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling
Summary
TLDRThe script recounts a Fox News panel discussing a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning a Colorado Supreme Court decision that aimed to disqualify him from the state's ballot. The panel examines the implications of this decision, with legal analysts suggesting it nullifies similar efforts by other states. They delve into the Court's reasoning, potential future challenges, and the impact on Trump's prospects amid ongoing legal battles, including an upcoming trial over the January 6th events. The discussion highlights the Court's stance on preserving the electoral process while leaving room for speculation on how this ruling might influence Trump's legal battles.
Takeaways
- 🗞️ The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify him from the Colorado ballot.
- 📖 The ruling implies that what happened in Colorado is not correct and suggests that states do not have the power to disqualify presidential candidates in this manner, potentially affecting similar actions in other states.
- 📝 Justices Barrett and others wrote concurrences, indicating agreement with the judgment but differing on the rationale.
- 🧐 The decision was described as having a unified voice from the court, emphasizing a concern over a patchwork of state decisions affecting national elections.
- 🛠️ There were no dissents noted, pointing to a consensus on the court against the disqualification framework used by Colorado.
- 🌐 The Supreme Court's opinion suggests that the power to enforce Section 3 against federal office holders and candidates rests with Congress, not the states.
- 📚 Justice Barrett and the three progressive justices expressed that the court may have gone too far in addressing additional questions beyond the immediate issue.
- 📈 This decision is seen as a significant victory for Trump, impacting how states can challenge presidential candidates' eligibility.
- 🖥️ The court's swift decision, rendered in just 25 days, is unusually fast for the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating the urgency and importance of the case.
- 🔔 The ruling may influence the approach to other cases related to presidential elections, emphasizing the court's intention not to decide the 2024 election through this ruling.
Q & A
What was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding former President Donald Trump's appeal?
-The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his appeal of a Colorado ballot disqualification.
What was the implication of the Supreme Court's decision beyond Colorado?
-The decision implies that, in all likelihood, the ruling will apply to other states as well.
What did the Supreme Court say about the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court?
-The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to be kicked off the ballot, does not stand and has to be overturned.
Did any justices write concurrences or dissents regarding the decision?
-Justice Barrett and possibly other justices wrote concurrences, but there were no dissents noted in the discussion, indicating a general agreement on the outcome.
What concern did the Supreme Court address regarding states disqualifying candidates from ballots?
-The Supreme Court was concerned about creating a patchwork across the state, where different states might disqualify candidates arbitrarily, leading to a fragmented national election process.
What did the court suggest should be the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot?
-The court suggested that the authority to disqualify a candidate from the ballot should rest with Congress, not individual states.
How did the justices view the states' power in disqualifying candidates from ballots?
-The justices appeared to unanimously agree that states do not have the power to unilaterally disqualify candidates from ballots; this should be a matter for Congress.
What was the concern of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson?
-Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, while concurring with the judgment, expressed concerns that the court went too far in resolving additional questions beyond the immediate case.
Does this Supreme Court decision affect similar cases in other states?
-Yes, this decision suggests that states have lost the ability to unilaterally disqualify candidates based on the criteria that were applied in the Colorado case.
What was the timeline between the Supreme Court's argument and the decision on this case?
-The case was argued on February 8th and the decision was rendered on March 4th, making it a relatively quick turnaround of 25 days for the Supreme Court.
Outlines
📰 Breaking News: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Ballot Disqualification
This paragraph covers a breaking news alert reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his appeal of a Colorado ballot disqualification. The ruling applies to Colorado and is likely to impact other states as well. Shannon Bream provides initial analysis, stating that the court has essentially overturned the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment allowing Trump to be kicked off the ballot. The court appears to be united in this decision, with concurrences from Justices Barrett and others, but no dissents are noted.
🗳️ Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling on Ballot Disqualification
This paragraph delves into the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Andy McCarthy suggests that while the decision is a sweeping 9-0 ruling on the states' inability to disqualify candidates, there is a 5-4 split on the more important issue of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be enforced without Congress legislating through Section 5. The implication is that Congress cannot use Section 3 to deny Trump the presidency if he wins the 2024 election, which is considered a momentous decision. Justices Barrett and the three progressive justices appear to be unhappy with the court's reach on this matter.
⌛ Potential Timing of the Immunity Case Decision and July 4th Weekend
This paragraph discusses the potential timing of the Supreme Court's decision on the immunity case involving President Trump. It is noted that the court has historically rendered decisions around the end of June or the first week of July, coinciding with the July 4th holiday weekend. Based on the lightning-fast decision in the ballot disqualification case and the experts' predictions, there is speculation that the court may issue a ruling on the immunity case right before the July 4th weekend, potentially setting the stage for significant events surrounding the holiday.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡U.S. Supreme Court
💡Colorado ballot disqualification
💡Opinion
💡Concurrences
💡Patchwork across the state
💡14th Amendment
💡Insurrection
💡Congress
💡Self-executing
💡Unanimous decision
Highlights
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of former President Donald Trump, overturning the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify him from the ballot.
The decision implies that similar disqualifications in other states are likely incorrect, suggesting a unified stance against state-level ballot disqualifications.
Justice Barrett and other justices wrote concurrences, indicating agreement on the outcome but varied paths to the decision.
The Court's majority opinion suggests that the power to disqualify candidates based on insurrection is reserved for Congress, not individual states.
The decision aims to prevent a fragmented electoral process across states, ensuring a uniform approach to candidate qualifications.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concur on the judgment but express concern that the Court's reach was too broad.
The ruling is seen as a unanimous (9-0) decision on the result, with a 5-4 split on the enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without Congressional action.
This ruling significantly impacts states that sought to disqualify Trump from ballots, nullifying their efforts and reinforcing the role of Congress.
The decision is framed as a critical moment in U.S. history, affirming the principle that voters should choose their candidates without state interference.
The Supreme Court's fast decision-making on this case highlights its significance and urgency.
Panelists agree that this ruling likely nullifies similar cases in other states, emphasizing the unanimous decision against state-enforced disqualifications.
The Court's approach minimizes its involvement in electoral decisions, aiming to avoid setting precedents that could influence future elections.
The ruling is a major victory for Trump, forcing political opponents to confront him in the election without relying on legal disqualifications.
The Supreme Court indicates it does not want to decide the 2024 election through judicial action, emphasizing a separation from electoral processes.
This case sets a precedent that Congress, not states or the Court, has the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regarding candidate disqualification.
Transcripts
CAPITOL.
WE'LL SEND IT BACK TO YOU.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE
OPINION.
>> Bill: THANK YOU.
SHALL WE?
ROLL IT, FOLKS.
THIS NOW IS A FOX NEWS ALERT AND
READING THIS.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES IN
FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP IN HIS APPEAL OF A
COLORADO BALLOT
DISQUALIFICATION.
THAT APPLIES TO COLORADO AND IN
ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT WILL APPLY TO
OTHER STATES AS WELL.
LIVE TO SHANNON FOR HER INITIAL
ANALYSIS AND REACTION NOW.
DID YOU HAVE THE INSIDE WORD,
SHANNON?
HELLO.
>> OK, WHAT WE HAVE IN THE COURT
THIS MORNING IS THIS DECISION IN
FAVOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEY ESSENTIALLY SAY THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO SUPREME
COURT THAT HE CAN BE KICKED OFF
THE BALLOT IN THIS MANNER DOES
NOT STAND.
HAS TO BE OVERTURNED.
IT'S AN OPINION, THE LATIN FOR
THAT IS THE COURT SPEAKS.
SUPPOSED TO BE SORT OF A UNIFIED
VOICE.
BUT WE DO, AS I'M LOOKING
THROUGH, ADDITIONAL FOLKS WHO
WROTE.
JUSTIN -- JUSTICE BARRETT AND I
BELIEVE OTHER JUSTICES WRITE
CONCURRENCES AS WELL.
THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS IN
A DIFFERENT WAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY DISSENTS HERE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COURT AS A
WHOLE IS AGREED WHATEVER
HAPPENED WITH COLORADO, IT WAS
NOT THE PROPER FRAMEWORK TO USE
HERE.
THERE IS DISCUSSION AT THE END
OF THE MAIN DECISION THAT SAYS,
YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE
ESSENTIALLY A PATCHWORK ACROSS
THE STATE.
SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORRIES
THAT THE JUSTICES HAD AND THE
QUESTIONS THAT CAME TOGETHER IN
ARGUMENT WERE, WHAT HAPPENS IF
WE TELL ONE STATE THEY CAN DO
THIS?
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID WHAT IF
ONE STATE DECIDES, OK BE I'M
KICKING OFF A REPUBLICAN AND
ANOTHER STATE SAYS OK, I'M
KICKING OFF A DEMOCRAT?
AND THEN WE GET DOWN TO JUST A
HANDFUL OF STATES THAT HAVE ALL
OF THE CANDIDATES' NAMES ON THE
BALLOT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO
THIS COUNTRY?
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF
THE COURT HAS COME TOGETHER IN
THIS VOICE TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED
IN COLORADO IS NOT CORRECT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE SAYING
STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO
CONGRESS.
AND SO THEY AGREED TO THAT
POINT, BUT HOW THEY GOT TO THESE
DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND HOW THEY
GOT TO THE AGREEMENT, THEY FOUND
SOME DIFFERENT MAPS THERE.
THEY GOT TO THE SAME END RESULT,
GUYS.
>> Dana: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS
FOR YOU.
ONE IS ABOUT SOTOMAYOR, ONE THAT
MIGHT DISAGREE.
ALSO, DOES THIS MEAN FOR ANY
OTHER STATE THAT'S THINKING
ABOUT THIS LIKE ILLINOIS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT IF THEY'RE
THINKING OF TRYING TO KEEP TRUMP
OFF THE BALLOT, THAT THEY WOULD
BE BARRED FROM DOING SO BASED ON
THIS DECISION?
>> YEAH, WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR
OF THIS AND I'M TRYING TO READ
THROUGH HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE
STATES DON'T HAVE THIS POWER.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN ANY STATE
ESSENTIALLY SAYING THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
LEFT TO CONGRESS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S QUESTIONS NOT TO GET TOO
WONKY BUT ABOUT THE 14TH
AMENDMENT IF IT WAS
SELF-EXECUTING, IF STATES COULD
PICK IT UP AND SAY WE FIND
SOMEONE WE THINK WAS GUILTY OF
INSURRECTION AND SO WE'RE SAYING
THEY CAN'T BE ON OUR BALLOT.
THERE WAS QUESTION, THOUGH,
WHETHER CONGRESS HAS TO GIVE
SOME FRAMEWORK FOR ACTUALLY
KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT
OR MAKING A DECISION ABOUT
KICKING SOMEONE OFF THE BALLOT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE HERE, THEY SAY
THE DISRUPTION TO ALLOW STATES
WOULD BE ACUTE AND COULD NULLIFY
THE VOTE OF MILLIONS AND CHANGE
THE ELECTION RESULT AT DIFFERENT
TIMES.
THEY SAY ENFORCING SECTION THREE
AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDERS
AND CANDIDATES RESTS WITH
CONGRESS AND NOT THE STATES.
SO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COLORADO
SUPREME COURT CANNOT STAND.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CLEAR MESSAGE
WITHOUT HAVING READ THE ENTIRE
OPINION, BUT CLEAR MESSAGE THAT
STATES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER.
>> Dana: WE SHOULD LET YOU KEEP
READING.
>> Bill: WE'LL ALLOW YOU A
MOMENT TO GET A FEW PARAGRAPHS
INTO YOUR BIG BRAIN, SHANNON.
LET'S MOVE TO OUR TEAM NOW.
JONATHAN, YOU'RE FIRST UP TO
REACT.
HOW DO YOU HEAR IT?
>> I'VE JUST BEEN READING THE
OPINION.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY A SWEEPING.
THERE AREN'T ANY REAL DISSENTS
SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT IS
UNANIMOUS, AT LEAST ON THE
RESULT, WHAT THEY HAVE A
DISAGREEMENT ON IS WHETHER THE
COURT HAD TO GO AS FAR AS IT
DID.
NOW, THE MOST PRACTICAL RESULT
OF THIS IS THAT THE VOTERS WILL
BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE
CANDIDATE THAT THEY PREFER.
THIS WAS A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR
THIS COURT IN HISTORY.
AFTER ALL OF THE YEARS WE HAVE
SPENT IN THIS REPUBLIC, WE CAME
TO A POINT WHERE THESE STATES
CLAIMED THAT THEY COULD
UNILATERALLY BAR THE LEADING
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FROM
BALLOTS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM
VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.
THE COURT HERE SPOKE WITH A
STRONG AND IT APPEARS UNANIMOUS
VOICE, AT LEAST ON THE RESULT,
THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT VOTERS WILL VOTE.
THEY'LL MAKE THEIR OWN VERDICT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN
CASES INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEY WILL CAST THE MOST
IMPORTANT VERDICT OF ALL.
THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE NEXT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> Bill: STAND BY THERE, SIR.
LET'S GET ANOTHER OPINION IN
HERE.
ANDY MCCARTHY, WHAT'S YOUR READ?
>> I THINK JONATHAN IS RIGHT
ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE SWEEPING
9-0 DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE
STATES.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS CASE IS
ACTUALLY A 5-4 CASE ON WHAT MAY
BE THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION.
IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING IS SECTION 3
CANNOT BE ENFORCED UNLESS
CONGRESS LEGISLATES THROUGH
SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
WHICH IT HAS DONE IN ENACTING A
CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH WOULD
ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE CONVICTED OF
INSURRECTION.
WHAT I GLEAN FROM THIS IS
THEY'RE SAYING IN THE NEXT
JANUARY 6TH, NEXT TIME THAT
CONGRESS IS CALLED ON TO RATIFY
AN ELECTION RESULT THAT CONGRESS
CANNOT USE SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH
AMENDMENT TO TRY TO DENY DONALD
TRUMP THE PRESIDENCY IF HE WINS
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHICH
IS PRETTY MOMENTOUS AND IT LOOKS
TO ME LIKE JUSTICE BARRETT AND
THE THREE PROGRESSIVES ON THE
COURT ARE UNHAPPY THAT THE COURT
REACHED AND DECIDED THAT.
>> Dana: SHANNON, NOW THAT
YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE MAYBE TO
TAKE ANOTHER LOOK HERE.
ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOTOMAYOR
KEAGAN JACKSON CONTINGENT?
>> YES.
YEAH.
I THINK ANDY IS EXACTLY RIGHT
THERE.
AND WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID
AS WELL.
THERE'S NOT A DISSENT.
THEY CONCUR ON THE JUDGMENT BUT
THEY SAY THEY DON'T THINK THE
COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO ALL
THESE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT
THEY DID.
THEY SAID IT WAS ENOUGH AND
JUSTICE BARRETT SAID IN HER
CONCURRENCE, TOO, TO GET TO
BOTTOM LINE THAT STATES CANNOT
DO THIS.
IT'S NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW TO DO
IT.
BUT THE DISSENT, AGAIN, NOT
DISSENTERS, CONCURRENCES THAT
COME FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR,
KEAGAN AND JACKSON TAKES A
DIFFERENT PATH.
THEY THINK THE COURT GOES TOO
FAR.
BY RESOLVING THESE EXTRA
QUESTIONS, THE MAJORITY ATTEMPTS
TO INSULATE ALL ALLEGED
INSURRECTIONISTS FROM FUTURE
CHALLENGES TO THEIR HOLDING
FEDERAL OFFICE.
THEY FEEL LIKE THE COURT WENT
TOO FAR.
YOU TRY TO GO AS NARROWLY AS
POSSIBLE.
AGAIN, THEY AGREE WITH THE
OVERALL DECISION.
BUT THINK THAT THE COURT IS
TRYING TO GIVE TOO MUCH COVER TO
FUTURE CANDIDATES WHO MAY FACE
THIS SCENARIO AND THEY JUST
DON'T THINK THE COURT SHOULD
HAVE GONE THOSE EXTRA STEPS.
>> Bill: I'M GOING TO SHOW OUR
VIEWERS THIS MAP HERE, GUYS, IF
WE COULD.
I HOPE I'VE GOT THE NUMBERS
RIGHT, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSING
A FEW.
IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST NINE
STATES, ALL RIGHT, THIS APPLIES
TO COLORADO.
BUT ILLINOIS HAS A SIMILAR
CHARGE, SO DOES THE STATE OF
MAINE.
MAINE IS IN SUPER TUESDAY
TOMORROW.
THEN EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN
YELLOW HAS A CASE THAT'S
PENDING.
DOES THIS NULLIFY ALL OF THOSE?
OR SOME OF THOSE?
OR NONE OF THOSE?
>> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I THINK
WE'D PROBABLY AGREE THESE STATES
HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO
THAT.
I'LL LET MY FELLOW PANELISTS
ANSWER.
>> Bill: ARE ALL THESE CASES
DONE?
>> I THINK THEY'RE ALL DEAD AS
DILLINGER.
WHEN YOU READ THIS OPINION,
THERE'S NO DISSENT THAT THE
STATES CANNOT ENFORCE THE 14TH
AMENDMENT PROVISION.
THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AS WE'VE
BEEN DISCUSSING, IS WHETHER THE
COURT SHOULD HAVE GONE EVEN
FURTHER TO SORT OF CLOSE OFF
FUTURE ARGUMENTS OR CHALLENGES
WITHOUT AN ACTION FROM CONGRESS.
THE MAJORITY IS SAYING THAT,
LOOK, YOU NEED CONGRESS TO ACT
HERE BEFORE YOU CAN ENFORCE THIS
PROVISION.
SOME OF THE JUSTICES FELT THEY
DIDN'T REALLY TO DEAL WITH THAT
QUESTION.
THEY DIDN'T SAY, BY THE WAY,
THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE
CONCLUSION NECESSARILY AS MUCH
AS THAT IS A BIT OF A REACH
BEYOND WHERE THEY NEED TO GO.
AND THEY ARE SAYING LOOK, WE
HAVE A LONG TRADITION OF
MINIMIZING OUR FOOTPRINT OF
TRYING TO STAY CONFINED TO THE
QUESTION AT HAND.
THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A
DISAGREEMENT.
YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT FOR
MONTHS NOW, THIS HAS BEEN
LITERALLY CALLED AN UNASSAILABLE
THEORY, VARIOUS PROFESSORS AND
COLUMNISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DONALD
TRUMP ARE THE CONSERVATIVE
JUSTICES ACTING AS POLITICAL
ROBOTS.
WELL, THIS IS A UNANIMOUS COURT
REJECTING THAT THEORY.
>> Dana: WHAT'S INTERESTING,
ANDY, IS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NO
DOUBT A BIG WIN FOR PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
BIG WIN AT THE HIGHEST COURT IN
THE LAND.
IT ALSO MAKES THE BIDEN TEAM
HAVE TO LIVE IN REALITY THAT
THESE COURT CASES ARE NOT GOING
TO BE THE THING THAT GETS TRUMP
OFF THE BALLOTS OR OUT OF THE
RACE.
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
RUN AGAINST HIM.
AND WHAT I'M WONDERING IS AND I
KNOW YOU CAN'T TELL THE FUTURE,
CRYSTAL BALL.
THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ASKED THE
SUPREME COURT TO LOOK AT.
WITH THIS RULING AND THIS KIND
OF RESULT AND UNANIMITY AT LEAST
ON THE FACT THAT THE STATES
CAN'T DO THIS UNILATERALLY
UNLESS CONGRESS ACTS IN THOSE
OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO DO, DOES THAT MEAN
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT HAVE
A BETTER POSITION GOING INTO THE
COURT ON THOSE OTHER CASES AS
WELL?
>> I DON'T THINK SO, DANA.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN TERMS OF
MINIMIZING ITS FOOTPRINT AS
JONATHAN REFERRED TO WHAT THIS
COURT WANTS TO MAKE CLEAR IS IT
IS NOT DECIDING THE 2024
ELECTION.
THIS DECISION HAS BEEN CRAFTED
IN A WAY THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE ELECTION THE
COURT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING
DON'T COME BACK TO US AFTER THE
ELECTION AND HAVE DEMOCRATS IN
CONGRESS TRYING TO DISQUALIFY
TRUMP UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE
14TH AMENDMENT.
THAT'S DONE.
WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.
HOWEVER, THEY'RE GEARING UP FOR
A SEPTEMBER TRIAL OF TRUMP IN
THE JANUARY 6TH CASE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ALREADY FROM
THE REPORTING LAST WEEK WHERE
THE JACK SMITH PROSECUTION TEAM
BASICALLY TRASHED WHAT
PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE
UNWRITTEN 60-DAY RULE WHERE THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUPPOSEDLY
WON'T TAKE ACTION.
THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE AN
ELECTION.
THEY SAID LAST WEEK THAT'S WANT
OPERATIVE.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN ITS
REPORTING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
CASE THAT CAME DOWN TODAY NOTED
THAT IF THE COURT KEPT THE SAME
PACE WITH RESPECT TO THE
IMMUNITY CASE AS THEY'VE KEPT
WITH THIS SECTION 3 CASE, THAT
WOULD OPEN UP THE DOOR TO HAVE A
SEPTEMBER TRIAL OF THE JANUARY
6TH CASE IN WASHINGTON.
SO I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE