donald trump is off the ballot in colorado. now, everyone is asking, what's going to happen next. tonight, on "laura coates live."

how can i put this? tonight is politically surreal. donald trump, the 45th president of the united states, the current republican front-runner, campaigning right now as we speak to be re-elected, hoping to sit right back down at that resolute desk. while the c olorado saying you have to do it in 49 states, colorado isn't one. why? they say he engaged in insurrection on january 6th. they say the 14th amendment says he is disqualified from the ballot and from being president of the united states of america. here's what the 14th amendment says. it says, no person shall hold any office, who has previously taken an oath, to support the constitution of the united states, has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or

given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. sound familiar? you heard this from the january 6th committee. you heard it from district court rile in the state of colorado. it was the first time there was a real trial to determine if donald trump had engaged in insurrection. the other times we delved in this as a nation, second impeachment trial. the fulton county case doesn't mention insurrection. the mar-a-lago case, classified documents. and jack smith's case, in that case he doesn't charge insurrection. colorado is the first instance we saw a trial judge, a trial judge, not a jury, examine the issue with donald trump in the center. here's the thing, that trial judge, yes. she found he had committed an

insurrection. that didn't mean he couldn't be on a colorado ballot. why? last month, that judge said that the insurrection of that 14th amendment didn't apply to the presidency. i know what you're thinking. if the colorado court decided this, why are we dealing with this again? the supreme court of california disagrees with that trial judge. the supreme court in colorado held that because he committed insurrection, gets erased from the ballot. that 14th amendment, it does apply to the president. they say. wow. it's so significant. the decision was not unanimous. it was 4-3. three dissents. those have tongues and strategists wagging. the defense made two main points. they don't think it's appropriate to take him off the ballot. but a criminal conviction for insurrection.

and the 14th amendment does not name or talk about the president of the united states. they think, if the framers meant for it to apply to the president, wouldn't they have said that? this begs the question, would there be no dissent if trump is charged and convicted? or would the fact that the 14th amendment doesn't mention the president, would that be enough to give him a pass? this is not happening today. this election is less than a year away. not until now. this doesn't go into effect until january 4th. the next day, january 5th, is when colorado is supposed to have the ballots printed for the election. they do it many months in advance. the next day, january 6th, we know why that date is significant.

this isn't the end to any of this. it will likely go from the california k colorado supreme court to the united states supreme court. that same court that is poised to determine if trump is immune from prosecution because the behavior he alleged to have committed, happened while he was actually the president. the campaign is saying it will swiftly file an appeal. but to be clear, all that got us here, it's been a long and winding road. trump was impeached in the house, before his first term was going to expire. the january committee referred to charges against trump to the department of justice, including assisting or aiding insurrection. remember this from liz cheney? >> no man, who would behavior that way, at that moment in

time, can serve in any position of authority in our nation again. he is unfit for any office. this ruling will bring tons of questions. and there's criticism swirling around. one of the loudest pieces of criticism is likely to be this question. it's rhetorical. why not leave it to the voters? i asked jamie raskin about that very point a few weeks ago. >> the constitution is clear on this question. it would be like saying, should we have school desegregation or not? should it be equal production in the constitution? or allow the voters to decide? there's some things that we commit to the constitution and

then we follow the constitution. >> that's one thing to address. one more, you will hear claims of election interference. we have been hearing them for quite some time. officials will find themselves trying to fend off accusations. including the colorado secretary of state. >> bringing a lawsuit to determine if a potential candidate is disqualified by very clear language of the constitution is not election interference. it's living in a society that believes in rule of law. having a proceeding where a judge decides if there's questions about a constitution or the law, the ultimate way things will go, is how american democracy should work. >> ladies and gentlemen of the electorate, think you have had

enough? buckle up, buttercups. this might be the beginning. let's talk about this with our pan panelists. i want to bring in bradley moss. hold on. i'm not going to bradley moss. and marcia cohen. i'm going to noah bookbinder the president and ceo of citizens for ethics and lawsuit. also, a long-time colorado republican, one of the plaintiffs in this case. i'm glad you're with me here tonight. this is significant. you were censured by your county gop for being a part of this lawsuit. what is your reaction to the ruling tonight? >> i laughed about the censure. i've been a republican for 30 years. highly active. very committed. my time and treasure has gone to

that party. i'm happy about tonight's ruling. this is about rule of law. this is about the constitution. the constitution is very clear. if a person endangerendangers s. that person is ineligible. the constitution is clear. there's five different ways. there's age, residency. if you serve two terms already. and if you engaged in insurrection, having taken that oath. you can not run again. and i think it's clear. >> noah, we bring you in. the court agrees with the district. we spoke about this very issue. the finding and the court

writing saying, we conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk that was undisputed at trial, established that president trump engaged in s insurrection. the moves to march to the capitol, that he characterized as alleged fraud on the people on this country, were overt and vol voluntary. my ice go back to the trial. that's where people are criticizing this opinion. does that disrupt what should happen here? >> it doesn't. this is not about criminal conse consequences. this is not to put anybody in prison. not to convict of a crime. it's a question of whether somebody is qualified to serve in office. just as you would look if

someone was not 35 years old. you would look at the facts in the law to figure out if they were qualified and determine they are not. obviously, this is more involved than that. that's why the court held a proceeding that lasted for days with multiple witnesses. and thousands of pages of evidence. and parsed through that in a careful way with careful repations from all sides. and made this decision that as a matter of fact and law, donald trump engaged in insurrection. if you look through that 200-page opinion that came out today, you don't see disputing of that piece of it. that's incredibly significant. the judges who have looked at this issue whether donald trump engaged in insurrection and examined the evidence, found he has. that's important.

thanks to the brave republicans and the independents like christa that got this ruling. >> none of us have lied about our age for any reason whosoever. one might argue, okay. an age requirement, where you were born, these are objective things that you could determine. insurrection, some would look at and say, hold on. doesn't that require more than a simple cursory inspection of a document? doesn't it require more of a leaning in? what is your reaction to that? you can imagine people have quite the bee in their bonnet over this particular issue. >> the minority in this decision raised concerns about due process. i would say due process did occur. i attended parts of the trial -- it's a civil trial.

and saw the evidence that was put forth. the other side put forth evidence. they were represented by talented lawyers. they put forth their information. if you read the decisions, the trial court and the colorado supreme court, very thoughtful vetting of the information. due process was done. it's clear. i believe that the u.s. supreme court looks at the issue. looks at the evidence. look at the briefs and looks at evidence. they will conclude the same thing. donald trump engaged in insurrection. he is ineligible to be on the ballot. this is about our democracy. trump involved himself in election interference. he tried to erase the votes of millions of voters. not mine. i voted for him.

there were millions of my fellow americans who voted and he tried to interfere in that. we need to be sure that the constitution is applied, allied as written and we do the right thing. >> noah, probably a stone's throw away from the washington, d.c. bureau, there's some law clerk in the supreme court, that's beginning the research as we speak. i would bet my bottom dollar on it, this goes to the supreme court of the united states. do you believe it will be held up by this court? >> we need to take in the remarkable decision from the colorado supreme court. addressing the former president who incited an insurrection to keep him in power. we'll see what happens. his people said they will appeal. we'll see if that happens.

what i am confident about, there will be a fair hearing from the u.s. supreme court. this is a supreme court that has a reputation as conservative. but it is a supreme court that has actually taken a hard look at potential abuses of power by donald trump and been willing to affirm oversight and limitations on that power. it's a court that's interested in originalism, in a language of the constitution and the intent of the people who wrote it. the language of the 14th amendment we think is clear and applies to this situation. we will get a fair hearing if it goes to the u.s. supreme court. that's appropriate for a matter like this. a great significance to the future of this democracy. >> it's very significant. and the appeal date of january

4th. january 5th, the ballot being printed. thank you for joining us this evening. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> i want to dig more with marshal cohen and bradley moss. you had been following the story all along. i appreciated your reporting. you understood the gravitas instantly of what the result could be in colorado. when you look at this, this was not the first bite at the apple. there was a case considered in michigan. a case in minnesota. why did those fail and this success? >> well, the big difference in this colorado case, this is the only one where the judge let the case go to trial. in the other states, they threw it out procedurally.

the judge had that question in front of her. he said throw this out. it's violating free speech. it's violating colorado state law. the constitutional disqualification cannot be enforced by a state. she had so many off-ramps. she said, these are weighy questions. these are unprecedented topics. let's go to trial and hear the evidence. both sides, there is due process. and she could have said that she didn't have jurisdiction. and held the trial. didn't have jurisdiction because they presented her compelling evidence that none of it should move forward. she wanted to see the facts and lay out the facts. once the facts came out, they were devastating for trump. that's what brought us to this conclusion today. >> brad, you were skeptical, at

best. skeptical, is that the word we're using? yes. what's your take on the ruling itself? >> the ruling is nicely done. it takes five hours to read this thing. the procedure questions. and the standings. and a detailed read of the substantive analysis in the trial court. the reason i remain skeptical, and it pains me because of my dislike for donald trump. the reason i think that the supreme court will reseverse, i will be on a procedural issue. the oath of office for the presidency is not the oath of office is not the oath at issue. or a political question. this is handled by the political

branch. congress handles those laws. just like the prosecution decides the cases in a civil context. that's the off-ramp i see the supreme court taking. i don't like it. >> because there is a political solution, an impeachment and the courts may have hands off. can you write in his name on the ballot? >> you cannot. at least under colorado law. i'm not an expert on the laws of state. there's a statement of intent form. you have to verify that you are eligible. he can't do that right now, as long as this ruling remains in place. >> they mention mike pence in this ruling. it's talking about the reaction to it and about demanding that

vice president pence refused to perform his duty and calling on senators to stop the electoral votes. he said these actions were direct participation in the insurrection. this statement is scathing. >> the reason they focused on that. the constitution, is not as clear as some of the guests say it was. the constitution says you have to engage in insurrection to be involved. the tweets that trump was putting out, those are actions. the calls to senators to prod them to overturn the results, even while the mob was breaking the windows outside. those are actions. that's what the colorado supreme court said, that's what engagement is. it was scathing. it all comes back to the

original sin of this scenario. this is unprecedented. it's unprecedented for a president to lose an election and try to stay in power. >> those are legal questions, not factual ones. that comes back to the problem of is this for a civil action to be oraddressing in a civil context? or is this the purview of the justice department? >> thank you so much. i'm wondering, based on this conversation, what the political implications are going to be. how significant is colorado in the overall discussion about trump's 2024 chances? will it make a difference?

the question on everyone's mind tonight, what does the colorado ballot removal mean for trump and his chances at the 2024 election. let's go to harry enten for this answer. he joins us from the magical wall. i've been waiting to talk to you. i want to take a step back because i want people to understand what a path for victory for trump was right in 2016 to understand the significance of colorado. remind us, what was his path back in 2016? >> if we look at the 2016 election, the electoral votes and the electoral college, trump 304 to clinton 227. and the key pathway that dump was able to put forth to win was the battleground states, states like pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, all those covered in red. guess what is covered in blue. we go out west, to the mountain west. we go to colorado.

dump did not win colorado in 2016. every republican has lost the state of colorado going back to 2008. the last republican to carry colorado was george w. bush in 2004. you don't have to be a republican to win colorado to win electoral college. >> that's important to understand. a lot of people reacting to him not being on the ballot. electoral college is coming to mind and 2016. we're less than a year away from the election. how about colorado this time around? >> what about colorado this time around? before this decision came down, all of the experts believed it would go democratic. solid biden, in cook county elections. this doesn't change much. and biden won it last time by 13.5 points in 2020. >> does that mean he's in bad

shape for 2024? doesn't sound like it in other polls. >> if we look at donald trump's electoral votes. look at the states in 2020. that gets you to 235. the states he lost but leads, gets you to 67. the potential 2024 total, 302. you need 270 to win. the states he lost, colorado is not included. trump has a clear pathway to victory. >> the number one question is based on this ruling. will other states follow suit? how might they rule? looking at the map you just showed us. not being on a state ballot where it did make a difference for him, that's consequential here. i want to know how voters are feeling about his actions on january 6th. this will have a huge impact.

>> is trump guilty of subverting the 2020 election? majority of americans say yes. 26% say no. there's a large portion. you add these together and you get a 50/50 split here. the response may be split. americans are split on donald trump. they have been since the beginning. >> we'll have an interesting jury selection. jury verdict in fulton county and washington, d.c. and anywhere else. harry, always a pleasure. thank you so much. what do voters think? we spoke to colorado voters tonight. >> that's great. he's a cook. good riddance. >> i think i cannot decide who i am voting for. it's my own decision. it's not the court's decision who i am voting for. >> it's beneficial.

during the trump presidency, there were dangerous rhetoric used. and working against that again, is beneficial for all americans. let's talk about this, with michael singleton and political commentator ashley ail llalliso. i begin with you shermichael. i'm not sure everyone had this on their bingo card. insurrection, maybe, yes. off the ballot, no. how will this play out with republican voters? >> you will see, every american should be outraged. i received multiple text messages from those engaged in politics in colorado and across the country. republican strategists. those that liked trump and disliked trump, this is not the way.

you should not remove the vote voter s' ability to choose a candidate they like. this is not going to change the electoral map. trump did not win in 2016 or 2020 and will not win in 2024. why do this? you further the argument that trump and some republicans will make, that you are trying to disenfranchise republican voters from choosing the republican of their choice. >> what about the argument? i don't take it lightly when it comes to a candidate of their choosing. we have voter criteria. you couldn't nominate a 16-year-old because you wanted to. you couldn't nominate somebody that didn't meet the qualifications of the presidency because you felt like it. the argument has been suggested it's not disenfranchising if there's never the criteria to be president of n the first place. is that snuff?

>> i think we saw what happen on january 6th. and we know who told people to come to sur capitol and overthrow the election results. that was donald trump. >> it will be wild, were his words. >> yes. when folks got there, there was other inflammatory words that were used that election results were not valid and they should go to the capitol. thaended with people dies. with threats and dangerous language and our country divided. people who are part of the insurrection, our country says cannot run for president. i will say, i don't think this is the way democrats want to beat donald trump. i think there's enough evidence on the type of policies he has and his recent discussing anti-semitic language.

as well as his intention to overthrow the election, is enough to disqualify him. in the party are supporting him as the front-runner. i think you want to beat donald trump on the merit. i say, poor nikki haley, she was the center of attention, getting this surge momentum. and now no one is talking about her. donald trump takes the oxygen out of the room and the focus goes on him. >> she is talking about him. nikki haley actually had -- let's play what they are saying tonight about all this. >> i do not believe donald trump should be prevented by being president of the united states by any court. i think he should be prevented being president of the united states by the voters of the country. >> i want to see this in the hands of the voters. we're going to do this the right way. the last thing we want to do is

judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot. >> even if it would help them. they are lagging behind. there is a concern of how this is viewed widely. >> i don't think this is a political question for haley or christie. and christie, as a phenomenal attorney. this is a philosophical belief of the rule of government. should the judicial system make that decision for the voter? or should it remain for the every citizen in colorado? most would agree with that. he didn't win in 2020. joe biden is the president. there's no guarantee he would win in 2024. why restrict the voters' ability to make the decision?

allow them to hear from the candidates and let them decide who should be the move the country forward? >> i worry what this does to enrage his base even more. the election results were valid and we had insurrection. what type of violence or greater animosity comes from the 40% of republican base that want trump. does that help or hurt the democracy? i'm sures curious how that play. >> he will say, they don't want me to be president. you can imagine this is going to occur in other places. it will further engender distrust in the process. we'll be right back. they are coming back. and donald trump doubled down.

he's tripling down. donald trump repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric. it involves kids this time.

getting sick and tired of cold and flu products that don't work? biovanta is the only number one physician-recommended product chosen over all others, including tylenol, mucinex, zicam, and nyquil / dayquil.

the combat symptoms and boosts immunity. biovanta really works.

it's crazy what's going on. they are ruining our country. and it's true. they are destroying the blood of our country. that's what they are doing. they are destroying our country. they don't like it when i said that. and i never read mein kampf. and they say hitler said that in a different way. >> donald trump, dismissing litter the comparisons over his anti-immigration rhetoric. i don't know if it's going to be a great play to say, i said it differently. a different way than hitler. that's unnecessary self-inflicted wound. >> unless you're in the halls of the academy and discussing history or political thought and politic al theory, i suppose those kfconversations could be d there.

i don't think it's wise for a member of a party that hitler, one of the horrible we've seen in leadership -- one of the most horrendous people we have seen in leadership, killed millions of people by the way. a guy we see in this country, many kkk groups and eastern europe groups hold as a deity figure. a diverse country today. and you have a leading figure misquoting him, i don't think is wise. this is why i think it resonates. you think of identity and nationalism. and you think of a particular type of people and values. belief systems and customs and idealism. think about russo. and so, you can understand how

people, who have been used to being in the majority, view the other folks coming into the country. they are changing the customs and the ideals about themselves. about the environment. and trump is further enflaming that, in my opinion. >> do you think he's giving him too much credit? >> iffe efe er is he is? saying jews will not replace us, he thought there were good people on that side. today, when he says similar rhetoric that hitler says or words like vermin, maybe you don't have to read the book to have hate in your heart and to have policies that allow for you to call immigrants and call

african countries the most heinous things. he is recommitting to the ideology. >> i don't want to interrupt you. but it's not hurting him among voters. it's also not when democrats talk about it. they're not getting traction from identifying what they see is wrong. >> i agree. that's the problem. there's people in this country that want donald trump to be president. i think we have to realize that after a barack obama, we don't live in a postracial society after a george floyd of 2020. we didn't have the reckoning because we have a republican front-runner that can say all those things rooted in hate.

on the democratic side, i don't think it's a comparison to who donald trump is. i think it will get traction and people will discuss it. communities are aware of his threat. it's not about donald trump. it's about what joe biden is doing for them. >> i don't think it's only the majority population that is experiencing the crisis of identity. even in the minority communities, there's going to be discord at some point, which community has the greatest power? that's going to be a crisis of identity. i predict you see conflict. in los angeles, you had leaders using racial phrases to describe african-americans and african-american political leaders. i think this is going to get

worse. >> we want to talk more about this later. i got to go to break. you discuss orders with me next. lava is spewing from a volcano in iceland, as officials are warning more events could open up. cnn is on the ground. we're going to get to the person on the ground next.

(♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪)

get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more. mountains of lava are setting the night sky aglow above southwest iceland tonight. the eruptions splitting a hole in the earth roughly two miles long. cnn getting as close as safely possible tonight. fred, what are you seeing? >> hi, laura. it's a massive eruption taking place in the southwest of ice land. it started late last night. and it's happening along a fissure, a crack in the ground, about 2 1/2 miles long. in the early stages of the eruption, you saw magma spewing from the large crack.

dozens of feet into the air. also, there was a lava flow moving away from that crack. we saw the icelandic coast guard flying around. they might have to see if there's people out there. this is a concerning situation for the authorities here. they cordoned this area off a long time ago. there's a village close to where the eruption is taking place, grindavik. that was evacuated a long time ago. we were able to fly over that area a couple of vehicle weeks ago. authorities don't believe that anybody is in danger. if you look at the eruption, there's not that much ash in the air. they say there's toxic gases being released.

that could be a problem. the capital of iceland is close to here, as well. this is a major eruption happening in iceland. and the authorities say they're not sure where it's going to end. >> wow. fred, thank you so much. say one day, you are opening up photos from the pharmacy. it's not exactly what you expect. it's this. tom brady and his kids. cvs photo mixup is next.

a photo mixup involving nfl legend tom brady. a mother of a san francisco 49ers player was picking up a family photo at the cvs in the bay area.

she got home. she opened the photos and realized they were of tom brady and his family. they were expecting a photo that looked like this. instead, got this, of tom brady and his kids from the patriots' first game of the season. her daughter shared the mixup on tiktok and it went viral. and the super bowl champ commented, writing, my mom must have been printing photos out in san francisco. my team spoke to the family tonight. they hope to get the photo back to tom and his mom. that doesn't happen, they will keep it as a memory, maybe to look back on. thank you for watching. our coverage continues.