We also want to focus in on the implications of that ruling, that decision by the special counsel, and the decision that is going to be coming from the Supreme Court after today's hearing about whether Trump can remain on the ballot in the state of Colorado. At the heart of that hearing, Trump's attorney argued that January sixth was a riot and not an insurrection. He said it was a riot, not an insurrection.

For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through through violence.

And this riot- So your point, is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government?

Is not an insurrection? No, we didn't concede that it's an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson. None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection.

All right, out front now, Ty Cobb, the former Trump Whitehouse lawyer. Now, Ty, a riot and insurrection aside for the moment, you have said from the very beginning that once the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled that Trump was going to come off the ballot, that this would go to the Supreme Court, that they would take it up, and that they would rule 9-0 in Trump's favor. That is what you said at the beginning. From what you heard today, and we did hear them all on audio, obviously, do you stand by that?

I do. I'm not Nostradamus, so on the 9-0, it might be 8-1. It's certainly 7 to 2. Justice Kagan clearly was having none of this today. I think it's important that there be at least one liberal justice, ideally three, in the column that decides this case, because it's important that the country understand this is not a political issue. This is what the law requires. But I do think that it is highly likely that it could be... They will have seven, eight or nine votes, and they will overturn this quickly. I'm not sure they can do it in two weeks, as Ryan suggested, but perhaps they can. I'd say a month is a good guess, plus or minus a week.

All right. So you'd said the justices likely wouldn't focus on whether Trump's an insurrectionist, but they would focus more in on this issue of officer of the United States under Article 3. Obviously, you heard Justice Katanji Brown Jackson question that, right? Obviously, liberal justice appointed by Biden said it was really troubling to her that the President is not listed in Article 3 when many other offices which are included under that were enumerated in her words there. What did you take away from her saying that and being so specific? I'm sorry.

Well, I think The difficulty with construing the Constitution is common sense is not necessarily the touchstone. I mean, it really does require specific language and parsing it for legal terms of art. For example, an officer Officers of the United States, that phrase is used, I think, five times in the Constitution. In virtually every instance, it's clear that it only refers to appointed officers under Article 2. When you add in the fact that they take a, as the clause says, Officers of the United States who take an oath to support the Constitution, the Support the Constitution oath is an Article 2 required oath of Officers of the United States subordinate to the President. The President takes a different oath, by the way, to preserve, protect, and defend. There are a lot of legalisms that go into this analysis, but I think that I think that issue is one of the potential silver bullets. The other potential silver bullet that the court spent a lot of time on today is the issue of the lack of authority of the state to act unilaterally in the absence of Congressional action. Justice Kavanaugh highlighted one of the seminal cases on this issue, In re Griffin, otherwise known as the Griffin's case, in which Chief Justice Chase, writing as a circuit Court Justice, ruled in 1869, a year after the amendment was passed, that the insurrectionist law could not be enforced unless the judge who was sought to be disqualified, unless Congress had first passed a law.

So I think the jurisprudence is out there. They could go either route. They may go both routes, which might require competing opinions. I think you'll see some concurrences and perhaps a dissent, and that could slow things down a little bit in terms of the court getting everything out in a timely way.

So, Ty, I want to ask you about we are waiting in the next five minutes, we believe. The President of the United States is going to give a statement in the diplomatic room. Obviously, as a former White House attorney, you know what that means. So there's going to be reporters in the room. There may be questions. We simply don't know, nor do we know what it's about. Obviously, the context is the special counsel report, the Searing report, that concluded that President Biden did willfully retain classified documents. But they say because he, Robert Hur, the special counsel said, because he cooperated, and in part because of his poor memory and his cooperation with the DOJ. That is why, in part, they are not going to bring charges because maybe a jury would conclude it was an innocent mistake. What's your reaction to reading this and to its specific focus on his memory?

That's a question that's very personal for me. I served as a senior counsel to Judge Adams in the independent counsel investigation of HUD shortly after the Reagan years. We had to make a decision on two cabinet officers, one of whom we declined on in large part because of health issues, but we didn't tell the world that. I think it's a legitimate reason not to prosecute shoot, but I'm not sure I would have put it up in red lights. I think that's awkward. I do also think that Biden's cooperation is clouded a bit by the fact that it's based on the fact that when documents were found in his office two years ago, people alerted the proper authorities. But Biden, in 2017, seven years ago, acknowledged to his ghostwriter that he had all these classified documents and actually shared them with him to some degree. I think the cooperation with the special counsel is important. I mean, they didn't throw up any roadblocks, they didn't go to court, they didn't destroy any documents, move any documents, put them in the pool or whatever happens in Mar-a-Lago. But it's not quite as clean as it might have been.

All right. Well, Ty, thank you very much.