Closing summary
Hello again, live blog readers, it’s been a very lively day in US political news. We’re closing this blog now but you can keep up with all our articles on the rest of the website, about today’s Supreme Court hearing, a legislative vote in the Senate and the report into Joe Biden holding onto classified documents after his vice-presidency – and tonight’s Republican caucuses in Nevada and an airing of Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin. The live blog will be back on Friday morning.
Here’s where things stand:
Richard Sauber, special counsel to Joe Biden, has released a statement that the office is “pleased” the special counsel found “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter” relating to the retention and disclosure of classified material post-vice presidency. He also suggested that the Biden administration will be taking “substantive action” to prevent such mistakes in the future.
Donald Trump claims Biden’s documents case is worse than his own classified document case, in which he has been criminally charged, after allegedly keeping and hiding top secret papers post-White House. Trump accused the US of having a “two-tiered system of justice” and said Biden’s case was “100 times different and more severe than mine”.
Attorneys for Joe Biden objected to special counsel Robert Hur repeatedly mentioning the president’s memory problems in his report, saying his descriptions were neither accurate nor appropriate.
Joe Biden says he ‘cooperated completely’ with the classified document investigation, even engaging in a lengthy interview with the special council not long after Hamas had attacked southern Israel and created an international crisis.
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report says Biden “willfully” kept and disclosed classified documents but a jury would be unlikely to convict beyond reasonable doubt, thinking it more likely to have been an innocent mistake by a well-meaning forgetful old man.
The classified documents report said no criminal charges were warranted against Joe Biden, who can’t be charged as a sitting president, and would not be justified even if he wasn’t president.
The US Senate voted to advance legislation that will send assistance to the militaries of Israel and Ukraine, as well as provide aid to Taiwan, but without new US immigration measures aimed chiefly at dealing with migration at the US-Mexico border. The legislation cleared the 60-vote threshold necessary to get around a filibuster, with 67 votes in favor, and 32 opposed. Democrats are aiming for a full vote next week.
The US Supreme Court appeared broadly skeptical of Colorado’s effort to keep Donald Trump off this year’s presidential ballot, with chief justice John Roberts worrying that if followed, other states would retaliate against future Democratic or Republican candidates, potentially swaying elections.
The supreme court gathered to hear arguments in a case that could decide if Donald Trump is eligible to continue his run for reelection as president. A legal effort to keep him off ballots nationwide began last year, when advocacy groups filed lawsuits in various states, arguing the constitution bars Trump from serving because he engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
More from the statement of Bob Bauer, the personal counsel to president Biden, on the Hur report:
Very little in this opus adds to a clear, succinctly stated understanding of a straightforward conclusion: no misconduct occurred, no charges are warranted. The Report delves into a discussion of the “evidence” of “willful” retention of classified documents, only to acknowledge that there is, in fact, no case of “willful” retention at all. Pages are devoted to documents related to Afghanistan policy that the Special Counsel concedes have little or no national security sensitivity. After extensive discussion of the President’s use of his diaries in writing his book, Promise Me, Dad, the Special Counsel Report concludes that the President shared with an assistant two passages from his diaries deemed to contain classified material, while also conceding that the President communicated a concern with protecting classified information throughout the book-writing process – and that the passages in question never made it into the book.
He cited a statement from the Department of Justice inspector general, who noted that although high-profile investigations – like those of a president – may be subject to more intense scrutiny, in this case the investigation violated “well-established department norms” – including “trashing the subject of an investigation with extraneous, unfounded, and irrelevant critical commentary”. More from his statement:
Throughout this process, a guiding principle has been to protect the integrity and independence of this investigation. Based on the facts and the law, the Special Counsel in this case had no choice but to find that criminal charges were not warranted. He had other choices, which should have been guided by the Department’s rules, policies, and practices, and he made the wrong ones.
Updated
Bob Bauer, attorney and personal counsel to President Biden, released an extensive statement in response to the Hur report on Thursday.
Like other allies of the president in the aftermath of the report, he highlighted Biden’s “complete cooperation”, including his “unprecedented decision” to open up every room of his family home and beach house to “comprehensive FBI searches as well as a voluntary interview conducted over two days”.
“We welcome this conclusion to the inquiry. But to be clear, it was plain from the outset that criminal charges were not warranted,” he said.
The report came after a 15-month inquiry involving 173 interviews of 147 witnesses and more than 7 million documents, Bauer said. Regarding the documents in question, the president had “immediately directed his team to report the discovery of classified documents mistakenly packed and shipped at the end of the Transition and facilitate their immediate return to the government”.
Bauer also condemned the investigation’s targeting of Biden’s personal notes and diaries, which he stated are commonly kept by those in office “all the way back to the Founding Fathers”. Investigating them, he said “flouts Department regulations and norms”.
“The Department of Justice has been aware of this note-taking practice for decades,” he said. “Until now, the Department never chose to investigate the practice, much less the contents of a president’s personal notes and diaries, even when DOJ expressly acknowledged that they might contain classified material.”
Biden adviser says administration will take 'substantive action' to prevent future document mistakes
Richard Sauber, special counsel to president Biden, has released a statement that the office is “pleased” the special counsel found “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter”. He also suggested that the Biden administration will be taking “substantive action” to prevent such mistakes in the future.
He noted that the report acknowledged “mistakes when packing documents at the end of an Administration or when Members of Congress leave office are unfortunately a common occurrence”.
“It’s happened with every Administration, Republican and Democrat, for the past 50 years,” he said. “Now that this investigation has concluded, President Biden plans to take new, substantive action to help prevent such mistakes in the future and will announce it soon.”
Sauber noted that the report recognized Biden “fully cooperated from day one”, self-reporting the classified documents found and ensuring the documents were “immediately returned to the government”.
“The simple truth is President Biden takes classified information seriously and strives to protect it,” Sauber said. “He has spent decades at the highest levels of government defending and advancing America’s national security and foreign policy interests and protecting her secrets.”
Updated
House Republican leadership issues statement on special counsel report
Top Republicans of the House of representatives – speaker Mike Johnson, leader Steve Scalise, whip Tom Emmer, and chairwoman Elise Stefanik – have released a statement on the Hur report, which they called “deeply disturbing”.
Of particular concern, they said, were findings regarding the “significant limitations” the President’s memory, which the special counsel cited as reasoning to not recommend charges. Here is the leadership’s full statement:
The Special Counsel’s finding that President Biden ‘willfully retained and disclosed classified materials’ and engaged in practices that ‘present serious risks to national security’ is deeply disturbing.
Not only does it demonstrate the President’s recklessness, but exposes a two-tiered system of justice that is indicting one President with politically motivated charges while carrying water for another amid similar allegations.
Among the most disturbing parts of this report is the Special Counsel’s justification for not recommending charges: namely that the President’s memory had such ‘significant limitations’ that he could not convince a jury that the President held a ‘mental state of willfulness’ that a serious felony requires.
A man too incapable of being held accountable for mishandling classified information is certainly unfit for the Oval Office.
New York Democrat and House judiciary committee ranking member Jerrold Nadler has issued a statement in response to Hur’s report, highlighting Trump’s own charges over mishandling of documents.
He said that it was likely “MAGA Republicans” will not let this go, and call to “investigate the investigators” – but the report “effectively ends the discussion”, he said. The rest of his statement below:
President Biden cooperated fully with the Special Counsel and redacted no portion of the Special Counsel’s report. Unlike Trump, President Biden has nothing to hide. And the contrast here is striking. If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice – instead of lying to investigators, again and again – he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him.
Updated
In addition to the statement from Donald Trump himself, Make America Great Again Inc – a Super Pac supporting the former president’s campaign for election in 2024, has released its own comment on Hur’s report.
“If you’re too senile to stand trial, then you’re too senile to be president,” said Alex Pfeiffer, communications director for Make America Great Again Inc. “Joe Biden is unfit to lead this nation.”
Updated
Trump claims Biden case worse than his own classified documents allegations
Former president Donald Trump has released a statement via his campaign regarding the findings in the report from Robert Hur, saying “THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” [sic].
Trump referenced his own classified documents case, in which he is charged of willful retention of national defense information, false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation and a scheme to conceal. That case is expected to go to trial in May 2024.
The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine. I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal - He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them. I was covered by the Presidential Records Act, Secret Service was always around, and GSA delivered the documents. Deranged Jack Smith should drop this Case immediately. ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
Updated
Republican chairman James Comer of the House committee on oversight and accountability has issued the following statement on the report from special counsel Robert Hur:
Americans expect equal justice under the law and are dismayed the Justice Department continues to allow Joe Biden to live above it. Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents for years in unsecure locations and intentionally disclosed them yet faces no consequences for his actions. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and we have uncovered key facts that unravel the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s narrative of events. Additionally, important questions remain about the extent of Joe Biden retaining sensitive materials related to specific countries involving his family’s influence peddling schemes that brought in millions for the Bidens. While the Justice Department has closed its investigation, the Oversight Committee’s investigation continues. We will continue to provide the transparency and accountability owed to the American people.
In addition to the statement, Comer said the White House was not cooperating with interviews the committee has requested with current and former White House staff who were involved with organizing, moving and removing boxes that contained classified materials.
He stated that the report confirmed Biden retained documents related to China and Ukraine, “two countries the Bidens have solicited and received millions of dollars from”.
Updated
Read the special counsel report into Joe Biden's possession of classified documents here
You can read special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, as well as the rebuttal from the president’s attorneys, below:
Biden attorneys took issue with mention of memory problems as neither 'accurate or appropriate'
Attorneys for Joe Biden objected to special counsel Robert Hur repeatedly mentioning the president’s memory problems in his report.
Referring to his conversation with Mark Zwonitzer, ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir Promise Me, Dad, Hur writes: “Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”
He later goes on to describe Biden as showing “diminished faculties and faulty memory” in his conversations with Zwonitzer.
In a letter written to Hur dated earlier this week and included in the report, the president’s special counsel Richard Sauber and personal attorney Bob Bauer took issue with the special counsel’s language:
We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are ‘warranted’ and that ‘the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt.’
They continue:
Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms. You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions – a number that is itself gratuitous.
Sauber and Bauer requested Hur “revisit your descriptions of President Biden’s memory”. He apparently did not do so.
Updated
Special counsel Robert Hur included in his report photos of where Joe Biden’s classified documents were stored:
Biden says 'cooperated completely' with classified document investigation, even in Israel attack aftermath
In a just-released statement, Joe Biden said he “threw up no roadblocks” to Robert Hur’s investigation of his possession of classified documents, and notes he spoke to the special counsel even in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.
The president’s comments came after Hur’s report noted that it would be difficult to convince jurors the “elderly” Biden intentionally kept government secrets, and related his inability to remember important dates during interviews with the special counsel.
Here’s what Biden had to say, in full:
The Special Counsel released today its findings about its look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach – that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.
This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s when I was a young Senator. I cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed.
Over my career in public service, I have always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously and no one has ever questioned that.
Updated
Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that in an interview last year, Joe Biden struggled to recall key chapters in his personal and professional life:
In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
Biden’s lack of ability to remember things would make it hard to prosecute him, Hur said:
We also expect many jurors to be struck by the place where the Afghanistan documents were ultimately found in Mr. Biden’s Delaware home: in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.
A reasonable juror could conclude that this is not where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy. Rather, it looks more like a place a person stores classified documents he has forgotten about or is unaware of. We have considered – and investigated – the possibility that the box was intentionally placed in the garage to make it appear to be there by mistake, but the evidence does not support that conclusion.
Special counsel worried jurors would see Biden 'as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory'
Special counsel Robert Hur wrote that he was concerned jurors would not believe that Joe Biden “willfully” kept classified documents, and that was one of the reasons why he does not think the president should face charges.
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur writes.
“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Hur wrote that: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully – that is, with intent to break the law – as the statute requires.”
Updated
Special prosecutor says evidence does not establish Biden's guilt beyond reasonable doubt
In his report, special counsel Robert Hur outlines how Joe Biden “willfully” disclosed classified documents, but says the available evidence does not establish the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur wrote in the report’s executive summary. “These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home.”
Justice department policy prohibits bringing charges against a president while they are in office, but Hur notes that, even if that were not the case, he would not recommend charging Biden.
The special counsel then goes in to why he does not think jurors would convict Biden. The reasons include evidence suggests Biden simply forgot he had classified material, or that jurors believed that when he found it, he would not have realized he was breaking the law, because the former vice-president was so used to seeing such documents.
The White House was provided a copy of special counsel Robert Hur’s report into Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, and reviewed it to determine if it revealed privileged information.
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel, said no changes were made: “We notified the justice department at approximately 9.00 this morning that our privilege review has concluded. In keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency throughout this investigation, the president declined to assert privilege over any portion of the report.”
Updated
Biden will not face charges in classified documents case
There will be no criminal charges filed in the classified documents investigation involving Joe Biden, Reuters is reporting, citing MSNBC, which is attributing that to an unnamed law enforcement official.
More details soon.
Meanwhile, Trump and Biden’s classified documents cases (in which the former president has been criminally charged and the current president has not) have similarities, there are also some notable differences.
The White House said Biden’s attorneys found a small number of classified documents and turned them over after discovery.
Trump resisted handing over boxes of classified material until a 2022 FBI search turned up about 100 classified documents, leading to obstruction of justice charges against Trump and two employees at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.
The White House said Biden and his team have cooperated with special counsel Robert Hur and his investigators. Biden cannot face federal criminal charges as a sitting president under a longstanding justice department policy.
The findings could pose political headaches for Biden who has sought to draw a contrast with Trump on issues of personal ethics and national security.
Hur’s report, and his decision not to bring criminal charges, are likely to fuel accusations of a double standard from Trump and his Republican allies.
[But] Trump was charged after prosecutors said he refused for months to turn over boxes containing presidential records he had taken to Mar-a-Lago and took steps to conceal the documents after the US government demanded their return.
Trump has pleaded not guilty and a trial is scheduled for May but is likely to be delayed.
JUST IN: A source familiar with the Special Counsel’s office says the Hur report has been delivered to Congress. Special counsel Hur was investigating Biden's handling of classified documents.
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 8, 2024
A senior law enforcement official told NBC News no criminal charges will be filed.
Updated
The special counsel in the Biden classified documents investigation focused on documents related to Biden’s service as vice-president in the Obama administration from 2009-2017 and from his prior tenure in the US Senate, Reuters reports.
Members of Joe Biden’s legal team found classified papers at the office of his Washington thinktank and the US president’s personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware.
Biden’s lead rival in the November election, former president Donald Trump, faces a 40-count federal indictment for retaining highly sensitive national security documents at his Florida resort after leaving office in 2021 and obstructing US government efforts to retrieve them.
Updated
Congress received special counsel report on Biden classified docs case
The US Congress has been handed the special counsel report on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents dating to his years as vice-president to Barack Obama, Reuters is reporting, citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter.
The US president was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur last October and the case relates to actions taken before Biden took the White House.
Earlier last year US attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Hur to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.
At the time, lawyers for Biden reported having found classified documents at his home and former thinktank.
Updated
One day after he strengthened regulations on soot pollution, EPA Administrator Michael Regan spoke about pollution controls’ impact on children at an environmental advocacy event in Washington DC.
“This is deeply personal for me,” he said. “Every morning when I leave the house I’m kissing my ten year old son on the forehead and hoping to be the best dad and the best administrator that I can.”
Regan described Thursday’s new soot rule as a “gamechanger,” especially for young people, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the health effects of pollution – and who face various other hardships.
“This is one thing we’re taking off their plates,” he said.
EPA Admin @EPAMichaelRegan at @CleanAirMoms convening this morning says the Biden admin, and the youth advisory council to EPA he created, are helping kids hold elected officials accountable.
— 𝕯𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖓𝖆 𝕹𝖔𝖔𝖗 (@dharnanoor) February 8, 2024
he says social media does that too & that the administration sees "all those memes" pic.twitter.com/1ywawi0cbt
Regan spoke at a meeting held by national environmental advocacy group Moms Clean Air Force on Thursday at the National Press Club.
Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, spoke earlier in the day about the Biden administration’s attempts to “infuse principles of justice and equity into everything.”
She touted one Biden administration program which allots 40% of certain environmental federal investments to communities most affected by the climate crisis and pollution.
Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton also spoke about environmental pollution at the event at the National Press Club.
“We know that in our warming climate, the dangers are particularly acute for our youngest,” she said.
Clinton spoke the children-focused efforts she is helming at the Clinton Foundation, of which she is vice-chair. One project: partnering with advocates working to keep schools open year-round, since they serve as not only educational facilities but also as cooling centers in many communities.
The Thursday event convened youth advocates, doctors, environmentalists, and public health advocates who called on Americans to work together to push for better regulations on air pollution.
“Your voice does matter,” said Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, who directs the Children’s Environmental Health Network. “A lot can really happen when mothers, parents, teachers, come together”
Moms Clean Air Force, an national environmental advocacy group, held a summit at the National Press Club on Thursday, featuring guests including Chelsea Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan.
Founded in 2011, the organization works to strengthen protections from planet-heating and toxic pollution. It is made up of 1.5 million members, many of whom are mothers.
The event comes amid increasing public concern about the climate crisis and pollution, and before a presidential election that will prove crucial for environmental policy in the US.
The Biden administration is currently rushing to finalize key environmental protections, including tightened standards on emissions from power plants and vehicles’ tailpipes.
“We have enormous challenges in front of us,” said Dominique Browning, co-founder and director of Moms Clean Air Force.
“We have never felt greater urgency to get things done.”
Paul Billings, who is national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association and was a panelist at Thursday’s event, said that in recent decades, political polarization has proved a major challenge in passing environmental protections. It should not be, he said, because “everyone has lungs.”
Panelists also discussed the ways children are disproportionately harmed by pollution and global warming, because their smaller, developing bodies are more vulnerable to health risks.
Another major challenge: the rise of mental health issues tied to concern about the climate crisis.“We’re seeing more and more children who are presenting with climate anxiety,” Dr Lisa Patel, executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health and pediatric hospitalist, said.
Updated
The day so far
After about two hours of arguments, the supreme court’s nine justices seemed broadly skeptical of the effort to keep Donald Trump from the presidential ballot over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. It is unclear when they will issue a ruling. Across the street at the Capitol, the Senate advanced a measure providing assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, following a botched attempt to also include hardline immigration policy changes Republicans demanded, then decided they did not like. The GOP wants to make amendments to the legislation, and it’s unclear what its reception will be in the House, but progress on this long-running negotiation appears to finally be happening.
Here’s a recap of the day’s events thus far:
Trump listened in to the supreme courts arguments, which, to his ears, sounded “beautiful”.
Jason Murray, an attorney for the people challenging Trump’s eligibility, warned the supreme court that the question could “could come back with a vengeance” if he is allowed to run.
Law professor Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame predicted the high court would rule quickly.
The Senate’s vote to advance a bill that will provide assistance to three countries Washington considers national security priorities is a sign of progress in what has been a tortuous and chaotic process.
Democrats have wanted for months to approve aid to the three countries, but the GOP, which controls the House and can block passage of legislation in the Senate using the filibuster, demanded they also agree to hardline immigration policy changes. But when those changes were announced earlier this week after months of bipartisan negotiation, Republicans decided they did not like them either, and Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said a bill pairing the border security changes with foreign aid money would not get a vote in his chamber.
Yesterday, the Senate voted down that version of the legislation after Republicans and some Democrats objected. The Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer immediately moved to put up for a vote the legislation that funds only Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, without addressing immigration policy at all. The Senate just a few minutes ago voted to advance that legislation.
But the story is far from over. It’s unclear if the House will approve the legislation, and Schumer said Senate Republicans want to make amendments before final passage:
We hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on amendments. Democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. During my time as majority leader, I have presided over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all four years of the previous administration. For the information of senators, we are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done.
Senate advances Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan aid bill
The Senate has advanced legislation that will send assistance to the militaries of Israel and Ukraine, as well as provide aid to Taiwan.
The legislation cleared the 60-vote threshold necessary to get around a filibuster, with 67 votes in favor, and 32 opposed.
Trump calls supreme court arguments 'beautiful'
Donald Trump struck a gleeful note when he appeared before reporters just now at Mar-a-Lago to announce that he had been listening to the supreme court’s arguments on his eligibility to run for president, and liked what he heard:
Former President Trump following Supreme Court oral argument: "It's unfortunate that we have to go through a thing like that. I consider it to be more election interference by the Democrats. That's what they're doing. The good news is we're leading in virtually every poll." pic.twitter.com/xrAfjsI6Hy
— CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024
Despite what he says, Trump is not alone in the race for the Republican nomination. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is still campaigning, though her days are probably numbered.
The supreme court was surrounded by protesters as the nine justices heard arguments over whether to exclude Donald Trump from the presidential ballot:
Today’s supreme court hearing appears to be bad news for those hoping to disqualify Donald Trump from seeking the presidency because of his involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
So says Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University: “The justices seemed poised to permit Trump to appear on the ballot and prevent states from excluding him without some mechanism from Congress. The justices seemed concerned that one state could affect the entire presidential election process, and that there needed to be some guidance from Congress before such an extraordinary measure could be taken. The Court seemed inclined to let the political process play out.”
He continued:
The Court will likely try to get an opinion out as quickly as possible in this expedited proceeding, perhaps even by the end of the month, to ensure that voters and candidates are on notice about how the presidential election will proceed. It’s not surprising to see the justices express discomfort with the proposition that the United States supreme court should wade into a factual and legal mire like this. But it was somewhat surprising that there seemed to be consensus around the theory that states could not do this without congressional legislation. The justices focused much more on the practical effect of ballot restrictions than anything else. Much of the briefing in the case leaned into a technical definition of ‘officer’, but few justices seemed very interested in that argument.
Supreme court adjourns after hearing arguments in Donald Trump disqualification case
The supreme court has adjourned after hearing arguments over Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the presidential ballot for more than two hours.
The justices appeared broadly skeptical of the effort to keep the former president off the ballot, with chief justice John Roberts worrying that, if they uphold the Colorado supreme court’s decision disqualifying Trump because he engaged in an insurrection, other states would retaliate against future Democratic or Republican candidates, potentially swaying elections.
It is unclear when justices will issue their decision.
Arguing now is Colorado solicitor general Shannon Stevenson.
She kicked off her time before the justices by arguing that the Colorado supreme court decided the case correctly:
Petitioner contends that Colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a supermajority act of Congress to remove his legal disability. Under this theory, Colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility, not just for the primary, but through the general election and up to the moment that an ineligible candidate was sworn into office. Nothing in the constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way.
This case was handled capably and efficiently by the Colorado courts, under a process that we’ve used to decide ballot challenges for more than a century. And as everyone agrees the court now has the record that it needs to resolve these important issues.
Challengers' attorney warns that eligibility question could 'could come back with a vengeance' if supreme court keeps Trump on ballot
Jason Murray, the attorney for the people challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility, just wrapped up his arguments, but before he did, liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wanted to hear his thoughts on the implications if the court turns him down.
“If we think that the states can’t enforce this provision, for whatever reason, in this context, in the presidential context, what happens next in this case? I mean, is it done?” Jackson asked.
In his reply, Murray argues that Trump’s eligibility could become an even more relevant issue if he wins the upcoming election, and members of Congress wonder if he is indeed eligible for the office:
If this court concludes that Colorado did not have the authority to exclude President Trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds, I think this case wouldn’t be done. But I think it could come back with a vengeance, because ultimately members of Congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election if president Trump wins about whether or not he’s disqualified from office, and whether to count votes cast for him under the Electoral Count Reform Act. So, President Trump himself urges this court in the first few pages of his brief to resolve the issues on the merits, and we think that the court should do so as well.
Updated
Conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh is asking plaintiffs’ attorney Jason Murray about the necessity of relying on the constitution to disqualify a candidate for office if they committed insurrection, when they could just be prosecuted.
Donald Trump is indeed facing federal charges for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but those have yet to be decided. Immediately following January 6, the House of Representative impeached him, but the Senate rejected convicting him.
“If the concern you have, which I understand is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely federal prosecution of insurrectionists. And if convicted, the Congress made clear you are automatically barred from holding a federal office. That tool exists, you agree, and could be used, but has not, could be used against someone who committed insurrection. You agree with that?” Kavanaugh asked.
“That’s absolutely right, your honor,” Murray replied. “But I would just make the point that the framers of section three clearly understood that criminal prosecutions weren’t sufficient, because oftentimes insurrectionists go unpunished, as was the case in the civil war, and that the least we can do is impose a civil disqualification penalty.”
Updated
Chief justice: 'handful of states' deciding election by omitting Trump is 'pretty daunting consequence'
Chief justice John Roberts, a conservative, is asking Jason Murray about the precedent that would be set if Donald Trump is booted from the presidential ballot.
“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” Roberts asked.
“In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions never have been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”
Murray replied: “There is a reason section three has been dormant for 150 years, and it’s because we haven’t seen anything like January 6 since Reconstruction. Insurrection against the constitution is something extraordinary.”
Updated
Attorney for group trying to keep Trump off presidential ballots begins supreme court arguments
Donald Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell has wrapped up his arguments before the supreme court.
Up next is Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Colorado voters who successfully sued to keep Trump off the state’s presidential ballot, and Norma Anderson, a former legislator in the state who signed on to the suit.
As he began his arguments, Murray said:
By engaging an insurrection against the constitution, President Trump disqualified himself from public office.
As we heard earlier, President Trump’s main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to section three that would apply to him and to him alone. He says section three disqualifies all oath-breaking insurrectionists, except a former president who never before held other state or federal office. There is no possible rationale for such an exemption, and the court should reject the claim that the framers made an extraordinary mistake. Section three uses deliberately broad language to cover all positions of federal power requiring an oath to the constitution. My friend relies on a claimed difference between an office under, and an officer of the United States, but this case does not come down to mere prepositions.
The two phrases are two sides of the same coin, referring to any federal office, or to anyone who holds one.
Updated
Under questioning from liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Donald Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell was asked to weigh in on whether January 6 was an insurrection.
After some back and forth, Mitchell said:
This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section three.
One of the arguments being made by Donald Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell is that the president is not an “officer of the United States”, the role that section three of the 14th amendment singles out for disqualification.
Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor wanted to know more about that.
“Your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the United States, correct?” Sotomayor asked, to which Mitchell responded in the affirmative, while noting he would make his argument “a little more forcefully”.
Before he could continue, Sotomayor interjected, wondering if Mitchell’s view wasn’t “gerrymandered” and “designed to benefit only your client”.
“I certainly wouldn’t call it a gerrymander. That implies nefarious intent,” Mitchell replied.
The justices are taking turns bouncing questions off Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who is representing Donald Trump.
After a lengthy period of silence, conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh just asked his first question. We still haven’t heard anything from his fellow conservative Neil Gorsuch. All the other justices have had the chance to spar with Mitchell.
The plaintiffs trying to keep Donald Trump off presidential ballots are citing section three of the constitution’s 14th amendment, which bans people from federal elected office who have sworn an oath to support the constitution and who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.
At issue is whether that clause is self-executing, as in, whether or not Congress must pass a law to enforce it. Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell was asked by conservative justice Clarence Thomas if section three was self-executing, and replied:
There would not be any role for the states in enforcing section three, unless Congress were to enact a statute that gives them that authority.
Updated
Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer for Donald Trump, is up first as the supreme court begins hearing the case.
“The Colorado supreme court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed for numerous independent reasons,” Mitchell said.
By a 4-3 vote, the Colorado supreme court booted Trump from the state’s presidential ballot, a ruling that the former president is appealing.
The US supreme court may decide the case in many ways, but it’s possible that they issue a broad ruling addressing the question of Trump’s eligibility in the various states where it is being challenged.
Supreme court convenes to hear Trump election eligibility case
The supreme court has gathered and is soon expected to begin hearing arguments from both sides in the case over whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president because of his involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
As Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, notes, the court won’t begin hearing the case immediately:
One listening note re: #SCOTUS:
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 8, 2024
The Court is *convening* at 10 ET, but it has other business to conduct before the Section 3 argument—including handing down one or more opinions in *other* cases—that will *not* be live-streamed.
So the actual live feed won’t start for a bit…
Nor are the nine justices expected to announce their decision today. That is likely to come at some point in the future.
Updated
I’m at the supreme court for today’s hearing, and spotted Jason Miller, a top aide to Donald Trump, entering the building.
While the former president has sat in for some of his court hearings, such as the defamation lawsuit brought against him by author E Jean Carroll, and his arraignments on the state and federal charges brought against him, he is not expected to be here today.
The supreme court is far from the only tribunal considering Donald Trump’s fate.
While the issue they’re weighing is constitutional, the former president is facing dozens of criminal charges spread over four indictments, as well as several civil suits.
We have a newsletter that covers the latest in all these cases, and you can sign up for it below:
What to watch for as supreme court considers if Trump is eligible to run
From the Guardian’s Cameron Joseph, here’s a primer of what to watch for as the supreme court hears arguments today over whether or not Donald Trump is eligible to run for president, because of his involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
The case is one of the most politically charged the court has ever faced, and there’s plenty of speculation over how the body, which is dominated by its six-justice conservative majority, will rule:
The US supreme court meets today to hear oral arguments on whether the 14th amendment of the constitution bars the former president Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in Colorado and other states because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. The case is unprecedented: the clause has rarely been used since it became part of the constitution after the civil war in 1868, and it has never before been applied to a former president.
The oral arguments are expected to be something of a free-for-all, with nine justices asking about a bevy of unresolved constitutional issues. And the justices’ questions on Thursday could hint at exactly how they might rule.
What they have been asked to decide is whether Trump should not be allowed to run for president because of section three of the 14th amendment, which says no one who has taken an oath to support the constitution – typically administered when elected officials are sworn into office – and goes on to engage “in insurrection or rebellion” against the US, is allowed to hold public office again.
Many legal scholars and former government officials have made the case in briefs that the plain language of the amendment applies to Trump, but few expect the supreme court to, in effect, decide the 2024 election by disqualifying one of the main candidates. Court watchers suspect that they would rather not hear the case at all – and may seek to make as narrow a ruling as possible.
Supreme court to consider case that could bar Trump from presidency over January 6
Good morning, US politics blog readers. Beginning at 10am ET today, the supreme court will hear arguments in a case that could decide if Donald Trump is eligible to continue his run for president. A legal effort to keep the former president off ballots nationwide began last year, when advocacy groups filed lawsuits in various states, arguing the constitution bars Trump from serving because he engaged in an insurrection on January 6. State officials and judges in lower courts have come to different conclusions on the merits of these claims, but the most notable decision was rendered by the Colorado supreme court, which agreed with the plaintiffs and threw him off the state’s ballot. Trump appealed that ruling, and the nine justice of the nation’s highest court will consider the issue today.
The supreme court is dominated by its six-member conservative supermajority, three of whom Trump appointed. Today’s arguments will give a hint of how they’re thinking about an issue that legal scholars view as the most contentious political issue the court has waded into since Bush v Gore in 2000, the case that proved decisive in George W Bush winning that year’s presidential election. We’ll cover the arguments live here, and let you know how it’s looking.
Here’s what else is happening:
Haggling continues in Congress over passing legislation to provide Ukraine and Israel with military assistance. The ball is now in the Senate’s court, where Democrats are attempting to pass legislation to do that, but it is still unclear if Republicans will sign on.
Robert Hur, the special counsel appointed to investigate if Joe Biden mishandle classified documents, told attorney general Merrick Garland that he has completed his investigation, the Associated Press reports.
Marianne Williamson, a long-shot Democratic candidate, has dropped out of the race for president.
