Maddow: Trump getting kicked off Colorado ballot ‘a real surprise’

Donald Trump is disqualified from being president under the 14th Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled for its state, removing Trump from the Colorado 2024 GOP primary ballot. On this ruling going to the Supreme Court, Rachel Maddow tells Joy Reid, “I don’t think this is the way that Donald Trump’s political career ends because of what we know about this iteration of the United States Supreme Court.”
» Subscribe to MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/msnbc

Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: https://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: https://www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: https://www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: https://link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc-daily-signup
Find MSNBC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSNBC
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/msnbc

#msnbc #maddow #trump

>>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO “THE REIDOUT.” WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH MAJOR BREAKING NEWS. A BOMBSHELL RULING FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT IN JUST THE LAST HOUR, STATES THAT DONALD TRUMP IS DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. AND FROM APPEARING ON THE

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT IN THAT STATE. IN A MORE THAN 200 PAGE RULING THE COURT FOUND THAT TRUMP IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE COURT FOUND THAT DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT IN ITS EARLY

RULING CALLING THE JANUARY 6th ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL AN INSURRECTION AND THAT TRUMP, QUOTE, ENGAGED IN THAT INSURRECTION THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ACTIONS. THE COURT NOTED WE DO NOT REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS LIGHTLY. WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE MAGNITUDE AND WEIGHT OF THE QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US.

WE ARE LIKEWISE MINDFUL OF OUR SOLEMN DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR. AND WITHOUT BEING SWAYED BY PUBLIC REACTION TO THE DECISIONS THAT THE LAW MANDATES WE REACH. THIS, FRANKLY, STUNNING AND UNPRECEDENTED DECISION COULD HAVE MAJOR IMPLICATIONS IN THE

2024 RACE IN WHICH TRUMP IS CURRENTLY THE REPUBLICAN FRONTRUNNER. THE DECISION WILL LIKELY BE APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WHICH COULD DECIDE THE MATTER ON A NATIONAL LEVEL. AND WHEN A BIG NEWS ITEM LIKE THIS DROPS, WE — THERE’S ONE

PERSON WE WANT TO TALK TO MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE. RACHEL MADDOW JOINS ME ON THE PHONE. WE HAD A WHOLE SHOW PLANNED, MY FRIEND. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY UPENDED. THIS IS WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. I AM IN FRONT OF PAPERS IN FRONT

OF ME, BUT I WANT TO LISTEN TO YOU REACT TO WHAT COLORADO SUPREME COURT HAS DONE. >> JOY, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON. IT’S SHORT NOTICE AND WE’RE ALL TRYING TO ABSORB THIS. I MEAN, LISTEN, I THINK IN THE

BROAD STROKES IN TERMS OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THERE ARE VERY FEW MAGIC WANDS. THERE ARE VERY FEW SORT OF, YOU KNOW, MAGIC SPELLS THAT YOU CAST THAT MAKE A COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT PROBLEM GO AWAY. IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.

AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULDN’T BE UNDER ANY ILLUSIONS ABOUT THE CHARACTER AND THE PARTISAN INCLINATIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OF THIS CURRENT SUPREME COURT AS IT IS CONSTITUTED. THAT SAID. >> YEAH. >> IT IS NOT — THIS IS NOT A

CRAZY THING FOR A DEMOCRACY TO DO. THIS IS — THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A HALLMARK OF POSTWAR GERMANY AFTER WORLD WAR II, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO BOLL SA NAR RO IN BRAZIL AND OUR OWN CONGRESS DID IN 1868 AFTER OUR CIVIL WAR SPECIFICALLY TO

PRECLUDE ANYBODY FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION AGAINST THIS COUNTRY. SO IT’S NOT UNHEARD OF, BUT IT’S D IT WOULD BE AN INCREDIBLE WILD CARD. >> IT WOULD INDEED, AND TO YOUR VERY POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE 14 MEMBERS WHO WERE EXPELLED

DURING THE CIVIL WAR FOR SUPPORTING THE CONFEDERACY. THE 14th AMENDMENT AMENDMENT SECTION 3 WRITTEN FOR THE CONFEDERACY, BECAUSE OF THAT INSURRECTION, AND I THINK WHAT WAS THE MOST STUNNING TO ME, RACHEL, I HAVEN’T GONE THROUGH THIS THICK RULING, BIG STACK OF

PAPER, BUT THE PART I’VE GOTTEN THROUGH WHAT I FOUND THE MOST STUNNING IS THAT WHAT THIS COURT HAS SAID, IS THAT THE — THE PREVIOUS COURT, LOWER COURT, WAS NOT WRONG IN SAYING THAT DONALD TRUMP ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. THEIR ONLY ERROR WAS SAYING THAT

SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT, WHICH AGAIN WAS TO PREVENT INSURRECTIONIST FROM SERVING DIDN’T APPLY TO PRESIDENTS. OH, NO WE AGREE WITH THE LOWER COURT, HE DID ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION, BUT SECTION 3 DOES, IN FACT, APPLY TO PRESIDENTS. I GUESS IT WAS SURPRISING THAT

LOWER COURT SAID IT DIDN’T. >> YEAH. IT’S INTERESTING AFTER THAT DISTRICT COURT RULING, THE TRUMP SIDE APPEALED PART OF IT AND THE PLAINTIFFS APPEALED THE OTHER PART OF IT, AND SO IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A REAL QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT WAS

GOING TO DO HERE. BUT I MEAN, LET’S KEEP IN MIND THE SCALE OF THIS. THIS IS ABOUT COLORADO ONLY. IT WILL — YOU SAID IT WILL LIKELY BE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT. IT WILL CERTAINLY BE APPEALED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THEIR RULING, I MEAN DEPENDING

ON WHAT THEY RULE, THEY COULD JUST SWAT THIS DOWN AND MAKE THIS GO AWAY, BUT IF THEY ENGAGE WITH IT IN A MORE NUANCED WAY OR AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT HAS NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS.

P THIS WILL APPLY IN MANY STATES. SO LISTEN, I DON’T THINK THIS IS THE WAY THAT DONALD TRUMP’S POLITICAL CAREER ENDS ULTIMATELY, BECAUSE OF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS ITERATION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ABOUT HIM ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION FOR

SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WHICH SAID INSURRECTIONISTS CANNOT HOLD OFFICE, IT’S NOT THAT YOU CAN’T RUN, YOU CAN’T HOLD NOTIFIES THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BROKEN YOUR OATH THAT IS — IT’S NOT A FLIPPANT DECISION. THEY DID FACT FINDING TO ARRIVE

AT THAT, AND IT’S GOING TO — IT’S GOING TO MATTER SOME WAY. I DON’T BELIEVE IT WILL BE A MAGIC WAND THAT ENDS HIS POLITICAL CAREER, BUT THIS IS A SUBSTANTIVE FINDING AND REAL SURPRISE FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

WELL LET’S BREAK THAT DOWN INTO TWO PIECES AND TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH IT COULD EXPAND AND METASTASIZE FOR DONALD TRUMP, THE WORRIES OVER COLORADO. THIS IS NOT A SWING STATE HE WOULD LIKELY WIN ANYWAY, WHATEVER, BUT THERE ARE OTHER STATE COURTS THAT HAVE REJECTED

SIMILAR LAWSUITS ATTEMPTING TO KEEP HIM OFF THE BALLOT. I WILL NAME THEM. ARIZONA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA. THE PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGING TRUMP’S ELIGIBILITY IN MICHIGAN FILED AN APPEAL TO THAT STATE’S SUPREME COURT JUST ON MONDAY. SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL RIPPLE EFFECT HERE, AND, YOU KNOW, I

WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT AND ALSO WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT BEING THIS COURT? THIS COURT THAT DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR PRECEDENT, BUT CALLS IT WILL ORIGINALIST, ITS MAJORITY DOES, AND A COURT THAT HAS A MEMBER WHOSE WIFE IS — WHOSE WIFE MATERIALLY

PARTICIPATED IN THE INSURRECTION AND WHO PROBABLY WON’T RECUSE HIMSELF. CLARENCE THOMAS’S WIFE I MEAN. >> YEAH. I MEAN, IF THE SUPREME COURT WERE TO AFFIRM THIS RULING, HE COULD BE DISQUALIFIED NOT JUST IN COLORADO BUT MULTIPLE STATES. LIKE THE STAKES COULDN’T BE HIGHER.

AS YOU SAY THEY DEFINE THEMSELVES AS ORIGINALISTS, WHAT IS ORIGINALISM MEAN, IT MEANS, IN MY LAYMAN’S TAKE ON IT, IT’S A FAIRYTALE, BUT IF YOU LISTEN TO THE WAY THAT THEY TALK ABOUT IT, IT’S THAT THERE’S NO INTERPRETATION ESSENTIALLY THAT ALL THEY’RE DOING IS APPLYING

THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THAT LANGUAGE INTENDED IT IN THEIR OWN TIME. AGAIN, I THINK IT IS KIND OF A FAIRYTALE BUT THAT’S THE WAY THEY TALK ABOUT IT THEMSELVES. IN THE CASE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT THIS WAS WRITTEN IN

1868 SPECIFICALLY TO PRECLUDE PEOPLE FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES IF THEY WERE — IF THEY HAD ENGAGED IN TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR IF THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN OFFICE HOLDERS WHO VIOLATED THAT OATH.

AND SO IT’S — I MEAN, I LOOK AT THAT AS A PERSON WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH THIS ORIGINALISM FANTASY LEGAL PHILOSOPHY AND SAY WELL, SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME, BUT YOU AND I KNOW AND EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERY REALISTIC OBSERVER OF THE SUPREME COURT

KNOWS, THAT THEY’RE NOT — THEY’RE NOT GIVEN TO GRAND GESTURES IN ANY DIRECTION OTHER THAN A RIGHT WING DIRECTION. THEY ARE WILLING TO DO EVEN VERY RADICAL THINGS. THEY’RE WILLING TO TAKE UP CASES WHERE THE FACT — THE PURPORTED FACTS OF THE CASE AREN’T REAL.

THEY’RE WILLING TO TAKE UP CASES WHERE THEY’RE SUPPOSEDLY GOVERNED BY PRECEDENT AND DECIDE PRECEDENT DOESN’T APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A NEW FEELING. THEY’RE WILLING TO DO RADICAL THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF CONSERVATIVE POLICY AIMS, AND I THINK IT COULD BE ARGUED

PARTISAN AIMS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN WILLING TO DO ANYTHING BRAVE IN ANY DECISION OTHER THAN — IN ANY DIRECTION OTHER THAN THAT. SO WILL THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAY, THIS IS WHAT THE — THIS IS WHAT THE AUTHORS

OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WERE TALKING ABOUT IN 1868 WHEN THEY PUT SECTION 3 IN THERE? I CANNOT IMAGINE IT, BUT, YOU KNOW — AT THIS POINT STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, JOY. YOU KNOW, WE’VE LIVED THROUGH A LOT YOU AND I. STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE LIKE YESTERDAY.

LIKE EVERYTHING STRANGE EVERY DAY. I WANTED TO HINGE ON ONE MORE THINGS AND DON’T WANT TO MAKE IT A HOSTAGE SITUATION BUT LOVE TALKING TO YOU. THE PART ABOUT THEM BEING REPUBLICANS, BECAUSE ONE OF — TO ME KIND OF THE THINGS THAT

YOU CAN SORT OF PREDICT ABOUT THIS SUPREME COURT, IS THAT THEY — THAT THE SUPREME COURT MAJORITY, CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY, THEY WILL HUE TO OUTCOMES THAT POLITICAL — THAT REPUBLICAN POLITICAL PARTY WOULD PREFER. >> YES. >> I THINK YOU AND I BOTH KNOW

FROM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THEY SAY PUBLICLY, ONE OF THE OUTCOMES THAT REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD PREFER IS NO MORE TRUMP. IS TO RID THEMSELVES OF THIS MAN. BECAUSE HE HAS TAKEN CONTROL OF THE PARTY. HE HAS TAKEN CONTROL OF THEIR BASE, AND HE HAS TAKEN CONTROL

OF THEIR MINDS. THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THEM ANYMORE UNLESS THEY USE THEM FOR WHATEVER THAT MAKES HIM FEEL GOOD THAT DAY. IN A SENSE THE SUPREME COURT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, IF WE WANT TO CALL THEM THAT, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RID THEIR

PREFERRED PARTY OF THIS PERSON BASED ON THE THING THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WAS A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER. CAN YOU FORESEE JOHN ROBERTS, FOR INSTANCE, TAKING UP THAT OPPORTUNITY? I PROBABLY COULDN’T FORESEE CLARENCE THOMAS DOING IT. ARE THERE FIVE THAT MIGHT?

>> I HONESTLY DON’T KNOW. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS IN JOURNALISM WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE’S A LOT OF CRITICISM AND A LOT OF IT DESERVED FOR WHAT WE CALL ACCESS JOURNALISM, FOR PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOW THEIR SUBJECTS OR

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE — I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF CRITICISM LESS WARRANTED FOR JOURNALISTS WHO ARE REALLY, REALLY LIKE DEEP EARTHWORMS IN ONE PARTICULAR BEAT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS WHEN PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOW THE SUPREME COURT, NOT JUST

AS LAWYERS OR EX-LAWYERS, BUT PEOPLE WHO KNOW THESE JUSTICES AND THE WAY THESE JUSTICES INTERACT AND IN TERMS OF THE WAY THEY THINK ABOUT POLITICS AND THEIR LEGACY AND ETHICS AND ALL THOSE THINGS, JOURNALISM ABOUT THE COURT AND THIS COURT AND

ABOUT THESE JUSTICES IS ABOUT TO GET VERY, VERY HOT AND VERY IMPORTANT. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE — THOSE PEOPLE’S PHONES ARE BURNING UP RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT DYNAMIC THAT YOU RAISED IS A REAL ONE, JOY, AND I DO THINK THE JUSTICES WANT JUST

NOT TO THINK OF THEM AS POLITICAL ACTORS, BUT I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE AND THEY HAVE POLITICS THAT ARE IN SOME WAYS QUITE DISCERNIBLE FOR SOME OF THEM AND THE OTHERS IT’S A LITTLE CRITIC. HOW DO THEY FEEL