i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this,

it restores a lot of faith in humanity. the 14th amendment of the constitution says insurrectionists cannot hold, quote, any office, civil or military, under the united states. and tonight, in a ruling, as stunning as it is unprecedented, the colorado supreme court said that donald j trump, the 45th president of the united states, is an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from being president. good evening, i'm pamela brown here in for anderson tonight. and we begin with not just the ruling, which is historic. but what happens when almost certainly reaches the u.s. supreme court, which could be

seismic. starting us off tonight, cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. paula, tell us more about this really surprising ruling? >> surprising, and remarkable, pamela. and the judges, here they acknowledge that. at the top of their opinion, they talk about the weight and the magnitude of the issue that they are deciding here. i mean, this is the biggest court decision to impact national election since bush v. gore. and even though this only impacts colorado, the implications could be national. because here, we are talking about the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. and there's a section of that amendment that bars u.s. officials from engaging in insurrection from holding public office. now when this case, and when colorado it was at the lower court level, there was a trial. they found that trump did engage in an insurrection, but they said he shouldn't be disqualified from the ballot because the judge said, that section of the constitution didn't specifically mention presidents. but, here the state supreme

court reversing that, saying he should be disqualified from the ballot, and even any votes that are written in for him shouldn't be counted. >> all right, so the colorado supreme court ruling tonight that trump shouldn't be on the primary ballot, as a result of what you just laid out. but he still will likely be on the primary ballot in colorado. why is that? help us understand that. >> exactly, welcome to civil procedures. so in their opinion they say look, we're going to put a stay on this, so they're gonna put their decision on pause until january 4th, 2024. and that date is significant, because it is the day before the state certifies its primary ballot. and they say if he appeals to the supreme court, which the former president has already singled he intends to do, the whole decision stays on hold until the high court weighs in one way or another. so, that means that yes, we do expect that he will still be on the primary ballot. and this larger question could impact the general election in november, depending on what the supreme court decides to do, or not to do. >> wow.

and just talk about the course load for the supreme court, as relates to this upcoming election, it's really unbelievable. you sort of touched on one hurdle, and that is whether section three of the 14th amendment applies to the president. but if you would lay out the different legal hurdles that the colorado supreme court had to overcome to reach this decision, that the supreme court will be looking at, assuming trump appeals as expected. >> yeah, so we expect that he will appeal. and we are already seeing, at least in the court of public opinion, he is trying to frame this as political persecution. but one of the things he is pointing to is that this is an all democrat supreme court. now, his lawyers have argued that a state court should not even have the authority, that they do not have the authority to take a candidate who has been selected by his party, off of the ballot. now they are also courts going to argue, sort of iso terek issues about the post-civil war revision to the 14th amendment.

the specific section that we are talking about. they're going to emphasize that presidents aren't mentioned there. and most ago, they are going to insist that a state court, particularly one where the supreme court is stacked with the opposition party, should not have this power. so, it will be interesting to see if the supreme court takes this up. but the former president's lawyers, they do have a lot of arguments. in fact, they also have three judges here dissenting, laying out why they think the majority is wrong, so that could help their case it. we will be again, a fascinating case, just another way the supreme court looms so large over the 2024 election. >> yeah, they have the three dissenting judges in this case, and they have three states that didn't agree with this decision that also looked at it. so paula reid, thank you so much, i know your continuing to go through this ruling, someone to come back to you in just a bit with any new information. but i want to get in for reaction now from colorado's top election officials, secretary of state jena griswald. who, if this ruling stands, will be in charge of enforcing it. madam secretary, you just heard

paula lay out some of the questions, as it pertains to this ruling, and your state. what does this ruling mean, for the former president, and the state of colorado tonight? >> well, it's definitely a big case. the fact of the matter is that the colorado supreme court has determined that donald trump did engage in insurrection, and that his actions have disqualified him from being president. and i just think the gravity of that in and of itself, is just remarkable. we've never had a president incite an insurrection, and then try to run for the presidency again. you know, we will see if the united states supreme court weighs in. and i of course will follow whatever court order and decision is in place by the time that we certify the ballot. >> has the state questioned whether colorado state law allows the disqualification of a presidential candidate, based on the insurrection ban? do you think this is allowed under state law? >> my job as secretary of state is to make sure that only qualifying candidates appear on our ballot. we routinely do that with all types of candidates.

and just like i wouldn't allow arnold schwarzenegger on the presidential primary ballot, because he is disqualified for not being a natural born citizen, a person, a candidate who is disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment, similarly, would be barred. so i do disagree with the dissent. but ultimately, it is up to the court systems, and right now, the highest case that we have says that donald trump is disqualified, because he disqualified himself when he tried to steal the presidency from the american people. >> so to be clear, you disagree with the dissent, and you believe he is disqualified, and therefore should not be on the state ballot. you agree with the majority in this opinion? >> no, that's not what i said. i of course will follow whatever court decision is in place. what i disagree with is that it is impossible, or not permissible under colorado law,

to disqualify a candidate from the presidential primary. it is routine for the secretary of state's office to check on qualifications. and when there are big questions about qualifications, there is a mechanism under colorado state law that allows voters to take a case to a court. that is exactly what we are seeing play out. and i think it's noteworthy to say the petitioners, who filed this case, or actually six republican's, and unaffiliated colorado voters, who believe that donald trump was disqualified. >> but what do you think, as a secretary of state? do you think he should be disqualified, or do you think he should be qualified? >> my job is to follow the law, and uphold the u.s. constitution. and this is a novel situation. i believe that donald trump incited the insurrection, in that it's up to a court to determine whether that incitement disqualifies him from further holding office

under the constitution. this is exactly how colorado law is set up. every day voters can file a lawsuit to have a court weigh in. this isn't such a clear cut case, in that we don't have a lot of case law, and it's unprecedented. and it's unprecedented by its nature in and of itself. we usually do not have presidents try to steal elections. and usually, we don't need to rely on section three of the 14th amendment to clear up eligibility of presidential candidates. >> okay, thank you for clarifying your position on this. jena griswold, we appreciate it. the former president is in iowa, his fourth visit there in recent weeks, speaking tonight in the city of waterloo. cnn's jeff zeleny is there as well, and joins us. so, has the former president reacted to tonight's monumental decision by the colorado supreme court, jeff? >> well pamela, surprisingly,

he has not. he has been speaking for nearly an hour in waterloo, talking about the iowa caucuses that are coming up in just 27 days, talking about some of his rivals, particularly florida governor ron desantis. but he has not talked about at all about that monumental colorado supreme court ruling. his campaign has. his campaign swiftly reacted in a statement, urging the supreme court to take this case up. and they believe they will be vindicated. the former president has talked about this supreme court, he has taken credit for appointing three members of the supreme court, but he has not yet mentioned his colorado case. but a raft of republicans have, from speaker johnson to other members of congress, and his campaign has been sending those out in rapid fire. but he has not spoken about it, largely this is a familiar stump speech that he's been giving out virtually every stop. he's been urging islands to come out and support him, he said he cannot take his victory for granted he needs to, quote, put his victory to bed here. but pamela, he has not talked about this colorado case at

all. it's been notable, he's been reading a lot of it off his teleprompter, so it's unclear if this was a plan to not mention it, or if he simply hasn't gotten to it yet. again, he's been speaking for just about an hour here in waterloo. >> yeah, i know you'll be listening, if he does respond to this. was there any reaction from the crowd, i'm curious as you heard has the news began to spread about this ruling? what are you hearing there on the ground about this? >> well look, as the crowd was waiting for him to arrive, pamela, as you know well, it takes hours for him to arrive. and the crowd gathers early, and of course they got this news on their phones. i was talking to a couple of his supporters, quite frankly some confusion about what exactly this rule is. quite frankly, the criminal cases, the judicial cases against him have been mounting up. so the people who did follow this simply said it was unfair. one more example of what they view as the justice department, the justice system being against this former president. we've seen time and time again,

his supporters have rallied to his defense on everything. so certainly, this will be one of those examples. and pamela, his campaign is trying to raise money off of this tonight, sending out a fund raising appeal just a short time ago. asking supporters to send small dollar contributions. so look, we could certainly expect this is going to be a rallying cry, certainly a very serious matter here about having his name on the ballot in colorado, or perhaps elsewhere. >> yeah, it could have nationwide implications. jeff zeleny, thank you so much. so to help put this in perspective, legally and politically, i'm joined here by cnn senior political analyst gloria borger. also, joe walsh, former illinois republican congressman and host of the white flag podcast. and cnn legal analyst carrie cordero with us as well. law professor and former federal prosecutor jessica roth, and nancy gardner, retired federal judge and currently harvard university senior law lecturer. carrie, i want to start with you. it is hard to overstate how big of a deal this is. what is your reaction to this unprecedented ruling?

>> well the colorado supreme court really understands, and it communicated in its opinion, the novelty of what it's done here, and the historical significance of what it's done here. saying quote, we travel in uncharted territory. and, this case presents several issues of first impressions. so, the court really just understands this important moment, the decision that it's made. not to say that this will be the ultimate decision of the u. s. supreme court, when this case is absolutely headed. i think it's interesting that this court made the decision, both on the fact of law, finding that the former president was an officer. that is, not necessarily the outcome that we would think the court would absolutely obtain. i mean, it's a questionable decision on that point. and then also, that the former president engaged in the insurrection itself, even though he hasn't been charged. so two really significant

findings of law by this colorado supreme court. >> right, and the district court judge in this case rule that, yes he did incite insurrection, by that section three of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency. the colorado supreme court said actually, yes it does, even though it doesn't explicitly say presidency, under section three. so carrie, we mentioned that the trump campaign says it will quote, swiftly file an appeal to the decision tonight. if you want to just explain how that appeal process would work of the supreme court, and what the stay that's involved in this means for trump being on the primary ballot in colorado? it can be a little bit confusing. >> right, well so, the state stay means that colorado can proceed now, until the supreme court picks it up. and i think again, this being such an unusual unprecedented case, we will have to see how quickly the supreme court moves. because they understand that there is actually an election there, there is the state for the primary in colorado. and, so they are going to have to take all of that into consideration. oftentimes, the supreme court

has as much time as it wants to be able to make its decisions in a long and deliberate process. but in this case, they simply don't have that time. and yet, they're going to have to be dealing with an issue of absolute historical significance, particularly on that issue of whether or not a president in this section three of the 14th amendment is an officer of the united states. the colorado supreme court says that the language itself, in the constitution, is so clear. but the fact that they are saying it's absolutely clear. in fact, they say it's so evident, that he was in office, that is going to, we will literally have to see how the supreme court comes out on this. >> yeah, and my understanding as well as that if he appeals by january 4th, then this

decision is stayed and he will still appear on the primary ballot in colorado. it's really a question of the general election ballot. judge gardner, i want to go to you. because as much as tonight's ruling is about colorado, this obviously now becomes a nationwide issue right. whether you're in colorado or not. because depending on how the supreme court rules on this decision, whether it takes it up, every other state could be impacted, , correct? >> right, every other state could be impacted, and there have been inconsistent rulings around the country, which is usually the reason why the supreme court would take a case like this. either because there's inconsistent rulings, or because it's a matter of national importance. so you are right that it only applies in colorado now, and the other challenges are only in the states that they are in. but the supreme court, it certainly could be precedent for disqualification anywhere else in the country. the notion that this was a democratic only supreme court, it's true, there were only democratic appointees, but the court split 4 to 3. and the position of the majority has been supported by conservative scholars all across the country.

so it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. >> right, and my understanding is, they were all appointed by democratic governors, but also six of the seven of them were up for reelection to maintain their seat. but of course, that's going to be a big talking point for trump and his campaign, as it already is. we're gonna talk with the politics of this in just a second. but jessica, i want to go to you, to re-part of the ruling. quote, we conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which is -- established that president trunk trump engaged in insurrection. president trump's direct -- exhorting his supporters to march for the cabinet resent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country, they were indisputably voluntary. end quote. >> what does it say to you that the colorado supreme court reached this conclusion, after a handful of other states did

not? >> this was a very, very thorough ruling. not only on the legal question presented, which we've been talking about thus far, and whether the president is an officer of the united states. but on the factual question of whether he engaged in insurrection. this court opinion was very lengthy, it got into the facts that were developed in the district court record. and it may very strong findings that trump incited the rebellion, incited the insurrection at the capitol. that he sowed lies about the election haven't been stolen. and then he made his statements in his speech at the ellipse, with the understanding that it would be understood by some of his supporters as a call to violence. those are among the findings that are included in this opinion by the colorado supreme court, echoing the findings of the district court opinion. so these are really astonishing findings, and these are not the kind of findings that can be overturned by the united states supreme court. they could disagree with the legal question of whether the president is an officer of the united states, they might even disagree with the legal question of what constitutes insurrection. but on the factual questions of

what trump did, and what his intent was, that's really not something that the united states supreme court is going to be in a position to overturn. so those findings, in a sense, will stand. and they are really damning. >> yeah, they certainly are damning. trump, for his part is vowing to appeal this ruling. gloria, on that note, we just went to jeff zeleny. and unless something changes between then and now, trump had not actually addressed this, which i personally find a little bit surprising, because of the fact that this could potentially pour more jet fuel on to the arguments that he's been making on the campaign trail, right. >> oh sure, and as jeff pointed out, there's already a fund raising email out on this. look pamela, i think this throws a grenade into the presidential election. donald trump can use this right now to his advantage, to make the point that the system is rigged against him, that these are a bunch of judges who don't want him to win election.

and this could supercharge his base. and i'm surprised he didn't talk about it tonight, maybe it's because the ruling came out so close to his speech. but i also think this is going to confuse the public, because you have the pending case on the insurrection, with the special counsel, jack smith. the supreme court now has to decide the question of presidential immunity, which is before it, as well as this question of the 14th amendment. so as much as the court doesn't want to get involved, and as much as i am sure these judges didn't want to supercharge the election process, i think they've done that. and the question is, how do the other candidates react to this? that remains to be seen, but i think now, this gives trump a another very good talking point. >> yeah, and to pick up on what you just raised to bring you in

joe, how do you think this affects trump's opponents? >> every thing that gloria just said, and then some. look, i always thought. i think a lot of us always thought trump was probably going to be the nominee. this is it. pamela, it freezes them. you're desantis, you're nikki haley, what are you going to say? you are going to have to echo what trump is going to say eventually. they are keeping the off the ballot, this is the deep state. this is, to the average republican they are in waterloo tonight, it's all confusing, but it's all part of the same argument that trump's been making, which is politically, they don't want me to run again. that's really, really powerful. and i'd argue, that's a really powerful with voters beyond just his hard-core base. and desantis and nikki haley have to second that. >> right, and it feeds into

this narrative he's been pushing more aggressively recently, saying i am not the threat to democracy, it's really the other side. they are trying to take away your will as a vote of, right. i mean, it will not be surprising if he uses that to try to push that narrative along, even though it's all separate, this is a con, it's the supreme court, this federal cases, there -- he is trying to lump them all in together. judge -- ultimately though, you look at the supreme court, and gloria touched on this, it's just really incredible. if we take a step back and look at all of these weighty trump related decisions, they are likely poised to make it before the election in november next year. >> this is bush v. gore on steroids. they are, they have to make decisions as to what they are going to take. there is a lurking question, as we all know. which is whether justice thomas

participates in these. which these are cases that are dealing with directly with the january six insurrection. will he recuse himself, or will there be motions to recuse him, because ginni thomas, his wife was at the ellipse. she didn't go to the capitol, but she was there. and there were text messages that she sent, which were about supporting the false electors scheme and the challenges to the election. frankly, personally in any other situation, a judge would recuse himself. in this situation, the court will say, or they may say that if he recuse himself the court will be split for four, only eight judges. it's an interesting question whether someone who should be disqualified should be the tie breaker. but that's where we are. >> and we know he didn't disqualify himself when it came to january six related questions with the january six committee. but you're right, that's interesting, there are so many different interesting legal and political threats here. we want to stay on top of all that. thank you all for your

analysis. and perspective on this, monumental story tonight. and up next, a leading conservative legal scholar, and early advocate for keeping trump off of the ballot on the 14th amendment grounds. retired appeals court judge jay michael luttig joins us. and then later, a live report from iceland, where a volcano just made winter there that much harder. we will be right back

well news of tonight's supreme

court ruling broke, it did more than just break history, and also lent credence to a legal argument across partisan lines. and some highly respected circles. my next guest, a conservative, along with the distinguish liberal constitutional scholar laurence tribe, were among the first to advocate for removing donald trump from the ballot on 14th amendment grounds. joining us now, retired federal peoples court judge j. michael luttig. judge, thank you for coming on. what is your reaction to this ruling from the colorado supreme court? >> thank you for having me on tonight, pam. the individual justices of the colorado supreme court brought honor to their court, as well to the state and federal judiciary's, with their opinion tonight, in this historic case.

the court meticulously, and methodically, addressed seriodum the many state issues, and federal constitution issues that are involved in the case. they marshaled the support for each and every one of thei r decisions of state law, and federal constitutional law, as well as any judge could do. their opinion is unassailable, under the objective law of the federal constitution, and section three of the 14th amendment. the supreme court of the united states ought to affirm this decision today. >> so you call it unassailable. but, there were three judges on this court that dissented from this decision. there were three other states that didn't agree with this decision. some of the sticking points have been the fact that section three of the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly say office of the presidency. that there was no due process to establish that trump incited the insurrection, and there is

a question of whether this is allowed under state law. what do you say to those arguments, that work against the ruling tonight from colorado's supreme court? >> well pam, the first thing i would say is that there has never been a court to rule on this issue. the colorado supreme court is the first court, appellate court in any state, to rule on the applicability of section three, to a former president. the other cases have been decided, and they've been decided on state law grounds, and or jurisdictional grounds. so, this case, it stands alone. i call it unassailable, because as you noted, the preeminent constitutional scholar of our time, professor laurence tribe and i, have been studying this

for three years now, in the wake of january 6th. professor tribe has been studying section three of the 14th amendment, literally, for his entire career. so, when we say, and i'm speaking for professor tribe tonight, who i spoke to earlier, that the opinion is unassailable, that means that he and i have taken into account every single argument contrary to every point made by the court today, including all of the contrary evidence, to the opinion tonight. and it is unassailable. the court ruled that, and i will address your other questions in this answer. the court ruled that a president of the united states, holds the office of the president.

and therefore, under section three, the presidency is an office under the united states. the court next held that the president is an officer of the united states. and finally, on the applicability of the 14th amendment, the court held that the oath that the president takes, which is different from the oath that takes, that other officers of the united states take, is nonetheless a, an oath to support the constitution of the united states within the meaning of the 14th amendment. and then of course, the court went on to affirm the lower court decision that the former president had in fact engaged in an insurrection or rebellion

against the constitution of the united states, in all of his conduct preceding, leading up to january 6th, and thereafter. so, your earlier guest i think said that that's a factual determination, it's not just a factual, it's a mixed question of fact and law. the judges here, and the supreme court will have to decide what the meaning of an insurrection or rebellion is, for purposes of the 14th amendment. and that's what the supreme court of colorado did today. and it's reasoning, and its support for that conclusion is also unassailable. >> well we will see what the supreme court thinks of this, assuming trump appeals, as he says he will, and they take up this case. judge luttig, thank you for coming on and sharing your perspective on this very important case tonight, we

appreciate it. >> thank you pam. >> and for more on the political impact, we are joined now by pollster and communications strategist frank lunce, who has been getting the pulse of trump voters for years. so, the obvious first question, frank, what do you think the impact of this ruling will be on their support for him? >> it's going to be exactly what the indictments did. it's going to be exactly what the criticisms have done. donald trump thrives on negativity. he thrives on legal systems that try to hold him accountable. and i am convinced that his polling numbers are going to go up. just today, the new york times published six key swing states that had donald trump up, beyond the margin of error, in five out of the six. the polling earlier a month ago was significant. trump is gaining, the more that he is prosecuted, the more that he is condemned, the higher his numbers go, as people rally

around him. and i would say to the judges, as i said to the justice department, you are actually making it more likely that donald trump is elected next november by how you are pursuing this. you don't explain the decisions, you don't put things in context. and so trump climbs and climbs and climbs. and right now, he is beating joe biden clearly nationwide. >> well you know the judges would say look we're just going by the law without fear of favor. and i mean, does the context even matter to trump supporters? because there have been. i mean tonight's ruling was really lengthy explaining point by point why they believe he incited the insurrection why the 14th amendment applies to him. but to the average trump supporter, does that context even matter? is this more about once again, trump is the victim of the deep state kind of thinking? >> it actually proves trump's point. it proves that the people in charge, the people in power are

trying to take him down. but they're not trying to reach all the trump voters. we're still trying to reach three or 4% of, them that will make a difference in this election. and make no mistake, there are very few undecided voters now. there are very few people going back and forth between trump and biden. it is more about those people who are trying to decide whether or not to vote. and i've got to tell you, nikki haley was gaining and gaining and gaining every single day. but she is going to be los the coverage for the next few days, maybe for the next couple of weeks, as trump turns this to his advantage. he is the best victim politician i have ever seen in my 35 years of doing this. and this is exactly what he would have wanted, in the run up to the iowa caucus. >> very quickly, because it stuck out to me looking at these polls, how many people who sought out in 2020 are not saying they're going, voting there when you vote for trump. so you think this just sort of super charges that? it is going to bring more people to vote for him?

>> and the state that blew me away was nevada. because that's a state with significant percentage of latino votes. trump has been screaming about illegal immigration, and -- nevada seems to be rewarding him for the languages that he uses, and for the intensity of his message. if nevada is going this much for trump, that ought to send you a big signal about what is happening in america today. >> all right, frank lunce thank you so much. up next, a three 60 investigation of how the first bill ron desantis signed into law allowing smoke-able -- raises questions on his own record on catering to campaign donors, and special interests. and then later, a status report on the erupting volcano in iceland, and who it threatens.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers.

i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. again, our breaking news. in a stunning decision, the colorado supreme court removed former president trump from the state's 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn't an eligible presidential candidate because of a 14th amendments insurrection ban. insurrectionist fan.

that is setting up a likely appeal to the u.s. supreme court. meanwhile tonight, florida governor ron desantis remains focused on trying to cut into the former president's double digit lead in the 2024 polls. in part, by criticizing him for failing to drain the swamp in washington during his first term in the white house. while it turns out desantis made the same pledge in his bid to become governor of florida. but a cnn investigation is raising -- to cater to fight special interest and campaign donors. and it all has to do with legalizing smoke-able medical marijuana in florida. here's randi kaye. >> thank you. [applause] god bless you. >> after ron desantis was elected governor of florida in 2018, the very first bill he signed into law legalized smoke -able medical marijuana in florida. >> whether they have to smoke it or not, who am i to judge that? i want people to be able to have their suffering relieved. >> a cnn investigation reveals how desantis was courted by key figures in the medical marijuana industry, who donated to his campaign. he got a political boost, and

they got a financial one. yet desantis is still boasting that he drained the swamp in florida. >> we drained the swamp in here. >> that all sounds good, but did he really drain the swamp? it turns out trueleaf, one of the leading medical marijuana companies in the u. s. today, contributed $50,000 to the florida gop, which help pay for desantis's campaign ads. true leaf then boasted of record profits, just months after desantis signed that law, telling investors that patient growth was driven primarily by the introduction of smoke-able flower, which by then constituted half of its sales in florida. florida hand surgeon turned marijuana entrepreneur jason perazolo was among those who co-hosted fund-raisers for desantis. this one, at its pot lakeside home near orlando, just weeks

before election day in 2018. cnn obtained this exclusive video. that's -- arriving for the fund-raiser with republican congressman matt gaetz, who has a state lawmaker in 2014, introduced legislation that became florida 's first marijuana law. -- his attorneys say he never discussed marijuana legislation with desantis. also at the party, then florida state representative halsey bechears. . his families tree farm later joined with other nurseries to become true leaf, that top medical marijuana producer which donated to desantis's campaign. all three of them have ties to florida's billion dollar marijuana industry. >> i want to thank you guys for your support. >> all of them a united force in raising money for desantis. >> one of the things that really impressed me about ron is that he pushes against the grain. >> desantis would also soon play a key role in florida's so-called green rush, which gave rise to a billion dollar industry. >> the reason why ron desantis became governor of florida is because of a plant called cannabis. >> that's lev parnas, one-time

associate of rudy giuliani and donald trump. in may of 2018, when ron desantis's campaign for governor was in trouble, parnas says desantis sought him out. >> you met him at the trump hotel. >> i met him at the trump hotel. ron approached me, he introduced himself to me, and told me that he's running for the governor of florida. >> where are you traveling in trump's circles at that time? >> very much so. >> if his name sounds familiar to you, that maybe because lev parnas played a role in the impeachment of trump. >> and congratulations. >> he coordinated with giulliani to try to dig up dirt on joe biden and ukraine. >> harness was also convicted of trying to illegally secure recreational marijuana licenses in several states, and sentenced to 20 months in prison last year. during our interview in his florida home, parnas told us desantis came to him seeking help for his struggling gubernatorial campaign. >> did desantis make it clear to you that he needed trump's endorsement? absolutely, that's how he approached me. he said he needed to get trump 's endorsement. when >> when he met desantis,

parnas was looking to get into the lucrative marijuana industry in florida. desantis had previously taken a stand against marijuana. as a u.s. congressman, he voted against making cannabis more accessible to veterans. i said how can i support you to be governor of florida where they're going against things that i personally believe in. >> after that, he says he had a change of heart. >> he would be willing to look at cannabis in a different light. and i was like whoa, that was a quick shift. >> parnas says desantis told him he wouldn't stand in the way of expanding the legalization of marijuana in florida. at this point, smoking medical marijuana was illegal, and so was all recreational pot. >> did desantis ever tell you specifically if you could get trump to endorse me, then i will change my mind about legalized medical marijuana

here? >> no, i don't recall having the exact conversation, like a quid pro quo type of the situation. but the whole conversation was a quid pro quo. >> parnas says he went to rudy giuliani, and convinced him to get trump to endorse desantis, which trump did in june of 2018. tweeting that he will be a great governor. parnas also donated $50,000 to desantis, and attended rallies with him. after his victory speech on election night in 2018, one of the people desantis hugged was lev parnas. >> he hugged, and congratulated, and i congratulated him, and says we did it. >> under desantis, medical marijuana has become an estimated 1. 8 billion dollar industry in florida.

on his first day of governor, there were fewer than 100 dispensaries in the state. now, there are nearly 600, serving more than 800 floridians >> as for lev parnas, he says he didn't benefit for that growth. cnn was unable to independently verify parnas's account regarding trump's endorsement. desantis returned parnas is 50,000 dollar contribution, and declined to answer questions about their interactions. accusing cnn of reporting opposition narratives about his campaign. neither the trump campaign nor giuliani would comment either. parnas admits others may also have had a hand in securing trump's endorsement fo r

desantis. but insists he played a key role. >> would you have connected trump and desantis, if desantis had changed his mind on marijuana? >> you know, never. >> randy, as far as you know, is desantis still in touch with him? >> he told us he distanced himself, and desantis has describebed him as s similar toy other dononor. bubut, pamela,a, we did rereviet messssages from m 2018 betweweem and desasantis, and itit shows e twtwo men commmmunicated a about fundraisining and alsoso some of those tetext messageges show tht desantis w was urging him to try and d get rudy g giuliani, t thn trump's pepersonal lawawyer, to post c certain mesessages on twitteter. soso, they werere certainlnly in communicatation aroundnd the tie of t that electition for ronon desasantis when n he was rununng for governrnor in 201818. itit's also woworth notingng, p, thatat matt gaetetz who alsoso d by desanantis, when n all of tht lelegislation n for marijujuanas going g through, h he has now wo distanced d himself anand is supportingng trump foror 2024. >> all r right, randndi kaye, tk you so mucuch. >> up next,t, a live rereporn the vovolcano in i iceland. we wilill be rightht back.

when we left you last night, video began pouring in from the volcanic eruption in iceland. and since then, the lava flow has diminished. but toxic gases could threaten the capitol reykjavík. cnn's fred pleitgen is near, not far from the volcano. and he is joining us now. what is the latest where you are, fred? >> reporter: hi there, pamela. authorities are saying that the lava flow has diminished somewhat, but it's still an absolutely massive lava flow that can fill an olympic-sized pool in a matter of seconds. this is really an eruption that the folks here down in the southwest of iceland say it's absolutely massive. it started around ten pm local time last night when a massive fissure crack opened here in the southwest of iceland. now, that fissure is about four

kilometers or about 2. 2, 2. 3 miles long. and it was just viewing magma, hundreds of feet up into the air. and that lasted for the better part of the day. and what authorities are now saying that things have calmed down a little bit, that magma is still being volted into the air by about 30 feet. so, there's still definitely a lot of activity going on, a lot of that lava flow is still going on as well. and you mentioned the toxic gases, it's one of the really interesting things about this volcanic eruption is that it's not spewing ash into the air as you would with a cone volcano. what those toxic gases, authorities here say could be a problem because we are also very close to the capital of iceland, to reykjavík. pam?

>> but toxic gases are a concern. are there any residents that are in danger? >> reporter: right now, the authorities believe that there is not. one of the things that they have done before this eruption took place is that they emptied out, they evacuated the main village, the main town, reykjanes. i'm actually right at the gates to reykjanes right now. that was evacuated about a month ago. they were expecting this eruption to happen. folks there have left. one of the things that we saw on the videos that are coming out right now, which is definitely going on, is that authorities are flying around and seeing if there are people who are down there and who still need to be evacuated. the other thing that is really important also, pamela, right now about the situation is that there is still a lot of first responders who are working inside that cordoned off area that you see behind me. one of the things that they are working on is a large berm in case that lava flow gets close to a geothermal power plant that is out there, that is extremely important for this

part of the country. there isis still a l lot going . ththere are a a lot of peoeopleo are woworking, verery close toto wherere that lava flow is s takg place. and ththe authoritities say thty arare concernened that thehe laa flow couould take ininto actionn thatat could thehen harm somome crcritical infnfrastructurure hn thisis country, , pamela. >> allll right, frfred pleitgeg, ththank you soso much. up n next, more e on the breakingng news, cololorado supe court remomoving formemer presit trtrump from t the state's's 204 ballot.. we a are gonna c check it agagan with paulala reid who's been watching the polliling.

bush v. gore on steroids. that is what a retired federal judge called tonight's decision by colorado supreme court, barring donald trump from the state's 2024 ballot. and what happens when the u. s. supreme court gets the case? so many questions tonight we are diving into. cnn's paula reid is back with us now.

as you continue to review this ruling, paula, what more stands out to you? >> reporter: they biggest question i had is what do the supreme courts see that the lower court oversaw this trial did not see, because that lower court said yes, trump engaged in an insurrection. but in section three of the 14th amendment, they did not specify presidents as being barred from holding future office. and therefore they said, look, we can't keep him off the ballot. but here, the supreme court says it is relying on intent, the objective behind section three of the 14th amendment. and, pamela, that is notable because this case, as we believe, headed up to a supreme court that has been taken over