tommy fleet wood, collin morikawa. something of a tradition where they put out this spot and tiger woods says his kids love it, they love mack daddy santa. he tweeted it on his instagram and social media channels. it is catchy. >> 'tis the season. who doesn't love mack daddy santa? >> 'tis the season for good traditions. >> thank you so much. great highlights there. and thanks all of you for joining you. i'm john avlon. "cnn this morning" starts right now. . morning, everyone, it is wednesday, december 20th, i'm poppy harlow with phil mattingly in new york. a moment that has never happened before in america. former president donald trump disqualified from holding office again by colorado's supreme court, accused of inciting an

insurrection on january 6th. the republican front runner removed from the gop primary ballot in that state. what does this mean nationally for the primary, and for the general election? >> trump advisers are already vowing to appeal setting up another high stakes supreme court case, his republican primary rivals rushed to his defense, and one wants candidates to boycott the colorado primary all together. also developing this morning, talks under way for a potential new deal to free hostages held by hamas. the new israeli proposal floating around this morning that could lead to a second temporary truce. "cnn this morning" starts right now. here's where we begin, donald trump kicked off the ballot in colorado, in an historic ruling that could throw the 2024 presidential election into chaos. the president, advisers vowing to take this extraordinary case

all the way up to the supreme court just weeks before the crucial gop primary season officially kicks off. >> here's what happened. colorado supreme court ruling last night that trump is disqualified from running for president again because he engaged in an insurrection. the justices trump concedes, set in motion and participated in the plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power on january 6th. as for the republican rivals, they are quickly coming to his defense. >> i will beat him fair and square. we don't need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions. >> i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by any court. i think he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters of this country. >> i will withdraw, i pledge to withdraw from the colorado gop primary ballot unless and until trump's name is restored.

>> while the former preponderate did not waste any time fund-raising off of this ruling, his campaign sent out emails immediately trying to fund raise, accusing democrats of trying to keep trump off the ballot because he will beat president biden. let's start our coverage with cnn's marshall cohen, you know this case inside and out. explain what it means to people this morning. >> well, poppy, good morning, this is a historic level of accountability for january 6th, and for donald trump's actions on january 6th. now, as you mentioned, this is probably not the final word because donald trump will appeal to the u.s. supreme court. but for this moment in time, this is a huge dose of accountability, and a punishment for january 6th. the colorado supreme court, in a 4-3 decision ruling that donald trump engaged in the insurrection, that the insurrectionist ban in the 14th amendment applies to the presidency, and he is ineligible

to hold any future office, that's the finding of the majority opinion, let me read for you a quote, a pretty searing quote where they hammered trump for his conduct that day. the justices wrote, quote, president trump did not merely incite the insurrection, even when the siege on the capitol was fully under way he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that vice president mike pence refused to perform his constitutional duty, and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counts of electoral votes. these actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection. it's those actions, donald trump's own behavior, that, according to the challengers and the justices on the colorado supreme court, is the reason why he's disqualified. let me play for you a clip from sean grimsley, one of the attorneys who led this challenge in colorado. he took a victory lap last night with our colleague kaitlan

collins. >> and donald trump is the only person to blame for this. i understand that his supporters may be upset that he could be off the ballot, but he needs to look in the mirror as to what he did on january 6th and the days leading up to it. he is the one. it is his actions that are going to be the thing that keeps him off the ballot. >> look, so it contrasts with what some of those republican candidates saying, right? he's saying this is the constitution, this is the law of the land, we're just following the law but guys we'll see what the final word is from the u.s. supreme court. >> yeah, marshall to that point, do we have any sense of time? there's a stay in effect, at least in the near term, do we have a sense of the timing of how this is all going to play? >> well, look, the supreme court can move quickly when it wants to, as i'm sure you'll remember, bush v gore was decided in a few days 23 years ago, but there are a lot of deadlines in the calendar here. the election officials in colorado say they have to certify the final list of the

names for the primary by january 5th. it's not so clear if that deadline will be met but we all know what the end game here, the end game is the presidency, stopping trump from the white house, that's the goal of the challenger, if he's still on some primary ballots you can believe they'll continue this fight into the general so we'll see, we'll see how it goes. >> marshall, before you go, and your reporting on this has been really excellent, can you explain what this would mean for the general election if he becomes the nominee? >> well, look, if he becomes the nominee, he will face more challenges. this is something that we've never grappled with before as a nation, poppy, there's not a lot of case law on this, he'll probably be challenged again if he wins the nomination, and he could even be challenged if he wins the election, but before his inauguration. >> marshall cohen, thank you. joining us now to discuss cnn senior political analyst john avalon, and cnn senior

legal analyst elie honig, i want to drill into the legal pieces, there's not a lot of case law, i don't think there's any, to some degree, there is no precedent for this, this is unquestionably historic, 12, 14 hours to digest this, what are your thoughts? >> so my thoughts are split into two camps, the first is that we shouldn't get overexcited that this is just, you know, i think it doesn't necessarily mean that trump's ruled out. it's clear that the supreme court, i think of the united states, will probably take up this case. this may mean just a setback. we may even see trump on the ballot if the supreme court takes up the case before january 5th, which is the day for certification of candidates on the ballot. but on the other hand it is historic because it is a preview of what is to come. now, this is something that is part of this kind of -- these ideas about insurrection, about overthrowing democracy, about

the accountability that's all step stemming from the trump presidency, it's a defining case in terms of thinking about how these things will play out over the next year and the next presidential election but also beyond that. it's opening the door for other cases, it's opening the door for the courts to establish what does it mean to be an insurrectionist? what does it mean for the presidency, a person who is in the office of the presidency, to take part in an insurrection. does that amount to disqualifying in some way, shape or form, and it's going to force not only the courts of this country to make a decision, but also the american public. >> you know, the real question here, elie, also is, this is a procedural decision, the district court already said a finding of fact that the former president engaged in an insurrection. but this court is taking it one step further and reading section 3 of the 14th amendment, a way that no court has so far. >> here's where the problem comes in with the ruling we got from the colorado supreme court

yesterday, even if we take it as a given, that donald trump engaged in an insurrection, and i'm willing to sign onto that, given all the facts, i think quite clearly, we still don't know, even as we sit here now, we don't know how this works, we don't know who gets to decide whether a person engaged in insurrection, we didn't know 100 years ago, we didn't know yesterday, we don't know now, the problem is, the constitution tells us how we're supposed to know, the 14th amendment says section 5, congress is supposed to pass laws telling us how this works, congress has not done that. what colorado did is they sort of made up this procedure, they had this quasi-hearing over five days and now the supreme court of colorado by a 4-3 margin is saying, good enough, he's out. that is a violation of due process, and that is why i think this ruling from the colorado supreme court is going to be struck down by the u.s. supreme court. >> avalon, i want you to respond, but we'll get to three of the justices on the court, dissented because of due process concerns. >> there have been a lot of

roadblocks in this effort based on a lot of people finding technicalities. the constitution says what it says, the colorado supreme court decided that the constitution still matters and it applies to donald trump. the 14th amendment, section 3 specifically says, we had the language up there, that no person who took an oath to uphold the constitution and engages in an insurrection or rebellion and gives aid or comfort, is eligible to hold any office, that's the language, any office. civil or federal. and people can parse, well, was it anticipated to be under a president? i know if you read the articles, the debates around ratification, senators at that time are saying, this is also forward looking, this is not just about the confederacy. i take elie's point, we've hat a long, vigorous agreement about the application of this, but the constitution exists for a reason. if people keep looking for loopholes to excuse donald trump for accountability, that's where you reap -- this is not partisan, it's about applying historic principles.

>> due process is not a loophole, due process is in section 1 of the 14th amendment. by the way, when donald trump lost dozens of his election suits in 2020, what did donald trump's people say, oh, those are technicalities, those are loopholes? those matter. due process matters, we can't just throw it out. >> respectfully, i don't think this is an issue of due process. this is an issue about whether donald trump engaged in an insurrection, and whether, therefore, the constitutional remedy for that applies. and i think people are going to put all sorts of partisan spin on the ball. cheer lead this from the left, shouldn't deny it from the right. if you believe -- any originalist on the court would say the text in the constitution matters and states rights matters with regard to colorado. listen to the judge, read the 74-page document by the two federal society jurists, legal scholars who went into this impartially saying it does apply

when you look at the full context. >> or the six other states that have rejected this. if you had gotten 100 brilliant lawyers, scholars, historians, a week ago, two years ago, how does impeachment work? everyone gives you the same answer. we have a process for that. the house votes by a majority, then the senate votes, has a trial, votes by two-thirds. same group together two years ago and say how does the 14th amendment work? you hear a hundred different answers, that's why this is a due process problem. >> it's worth pointing out, though, that even as we have these debates and try to think about, is this a question of the constitution, is it due process, the real question, is what is the supreme court going to do with this when they take this up? they inevitably will take it uchlt the question is, when will they take it up, what will they say, and how does that fall? i want to say, perhaps think about what happens when the supreme court takes it up. as much as we want to divorce it and think about the supreme court as this kind of objective body that is, we all can sit here at the table and know the

supreme court is not that right now. the supreme court has been politicized, the supreme court has three donald trump appointees on it and this does have implications for not just the question of, you know, can he be on the ballot, but all of these other kind of questions that surround donald trump and criminal charges, donald trump and insurrection, and that's going to be, you know, i'm sure jack smith, for example, is watching this with baited breath. people want to know, and the supreme court is going to have to weigh in at some point or another, to tell us what to think. they're going to be making these legal parameters, and these decisions. >> for sure. >> we've got a lot more to get to. there's also an election? >> there's that, too. >> and some politics. and a republican primary that seems more scrambled today than it was prior. we're getting into all that and more. we're going to dive deeper into how this ruling could imimp impact. and trump's backlash, what

he's saying about claims that he's echoing hitler. stay with us.

well, i think it's more unreasonable issues they're doing against trump again as usual. >> they attack him for, they

file court proceedings against him, but the democrats can get away with everything, two-tier justice. >> unless you think those are anecdotal. those are voters in iowa responding to the ruling from the colorado supreme court disqualifying trump from the gop primary ballot. >> the former president did not explicitly mention the ruling last night at this campaign rally in waterloo, but he did post several truth social messages with clips from fox news commentators defending him and calling the ruling, quote, election interference. let's go to jeff zeleny, our chief national affairs correspondent who joins us live in des moines this morning, that's just a sampling of what probably a lot of trump supporters are feeling this morning as they look at this. what are you hearing? >> hey, good morning, poppy and phil, it was a sampling, but certainly the sentiment of trump supporters simply saying

election interference, once again, is trying to stop their preferred choice for president. that's donald trump. so, election interference, once again, will be a rallying cry, but the former president uncharacteristically did not talk about this at all, the ruling happened just a few moments before he took the stage last night in waterloo, iowa, his campaign had already called for the supreme court to review this decision, they said it was un-american, but the former president did not speak about this, we asked his aids why, they said it was simply digesting this information. but what was clear is, as we've seen this pattern happen again and again throughout this primary season is, that this is something the republicans circle the wagons, nikki haley said we don't need judges to make these decisions, we will win this the right way, chris christie who has made criticizing donald trump the center piece of his campaign, he said judges and courts should not be making these decisions.

26 days before the iowa caucus voting begins we're once again seeing a familiar pattern of republicans coming to donald trump's defense. >> yeah, echoes of the new york d.a. case and the immediate response in the aftermath of that to some degree. >> sure. >> jeff, i have to ask, i was reading the transcript last night, the log that our great folks on the ground send from the rally, and i have to say i did a triple take at some of what trump did talk about, including kind of reacting to the backlash from his comments on immigration. what did he say? >> he did. he did not shy away from his harsh rhetoric on immigrants that he has been saying in recent rallies, in fact, he repeated it and amplified his km comments. he did say he's not specifically echoing the words of adolf hitler. >> it's crazy what's going on, they're ruining our country. and it's true, they're destroying the blood of our country. that's what they're doing. they're destroying our country. they don't like it when i said that, and i never read -- they

said, oh, hitler said that in a much different way. >> so that was the former president there saying hitler himself, for the first time, he had not mentioned that before, but a similar comment about immigrants and when you talk to his supporters what do you think of these comments? it is a familiar pattern as well. we don't like exactly how the former president talks about some things, there was very little applause, if any, during that, it was simply one of a litany of things his supporters have grown accustomed to him saying but he did not shy away from that at all. again, not surprised, and he has a commanding lead of this race, 26 days before the voting begins. >> jeff, real quick, while i have you, you're one of the premier political correspondents last several decades have you ever heard a candidate deny reading mein kampf before. >> i have not. phil, you've been on the

campaign trail. seventh presidential campaign, a couple decades, dpi guess, no o course not. certainly not one in a commanding lead to once again perhaps win this republican nomination. >> very different moment. jeff zeleny as always, thank you, my friend. we have a lot more on this ruling out of colorado, but also new this morning, israel proposing another deal to free more hostages held by hamas in exchange for a temporary truce. >> that volcano in iceland continues to spew lava and toxic gas, see the pictures there. live on the ground next.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

new this morning an israeli official tells cnn there is no deal yet on another hostage release, and that right now it is still in the negotiation stage. cnn political analyst barack ravid is reporting that israel has proposed a week long pause in fighting in gaza in exchange for 40 more hostages held by hamas to be released. our will ripley joins us live from tel aviv. barack's reporting on this has been second to none.

that would be a really big shift for israel to agree to a pause. >> there's certainly a lot of pressure on israel to do something to stop the daily bloodshed, including in the jabalia refugee camp where at least another 20 people have been killed. details here are crucial. the last hostage release took more than a month to hammer out. they would love for things to come together, there are still huge differences between what hamas wants and what israel wants, which is why israeli officials are telling us this morning that any final deal is still far away for now. but basically one of the sticking points is, what kind of hamas prisoners would be released? heavy-duty prisoners is what hamas is asking for as opposed to the mostly teenagers and women released by the israelis last time. israel, let me show you on screen here, the deal that israel is proposing to hamas being presented by qatar, it would include as you mentioned, poppy, a week long pause in fighting the release of some 40 hostages, women, and elderly and those in need of urgent medical

care. these hostages are the leverage hamas has and it's believed there are around 129 hostages remaining in gaza, around 108 of them believed to be alive. the remaining hostages, 21 of them believed to be dead. so the number of hostages is dwindling, and hamas had said that a permanent cease-fire could be needed for all of those hostages to be released. however, israel, of course, is calling this a temporary humanitarian pause before the fighting resumes, again, poppy, their main objective is to eliminate hamas leadership, and they say they have not done that yet, even though there's growing international pressure to stop this bombing, and the military activity, which is taking civilian lives, including accidentally over the weekend three israeli hostages. >> yeah, we wonder if that was an impetus for israel to come more to the table on this. will ripley reporting from tel aviv, thanks very much. well, this morning there are new concerns about that volcano that's been erupting in iceland since monday. less lava is shooting out but some of those magma fountains

are still nearly 100 feet high, and officials are worried about the gas pollution that could hit the capital today. fred pleitgen is two miles from the volcano. how real is the risk right now as this continues to be a problem, clearly? >> reporter: yeah, good morning, phil, i think the authorities are taking this risk very seriously. one of the things we saw last night around the volcano, they let us fairly close to it but at some point the situation changed and we had to move to a new location. they are taking the risk of those toxic gases quite seriously. i think right now, though, evacuations not set to happen until the situation once again could change again. one of the things that we are noticing, phil, the activity of the volcanic eruption diminished a little bit. there was, of course, that gigantic wall of magma we saw in the early hours, authorities are warning us this morning, there's

still three major events, spewing magma more than 100 feet into the air, it's a natural spectacle we are witnessing here in iceland. here's what we're seeing. >> the arctic night illuminated, the fissure breaks its molten core, our planet's display of fire and force. it's impossible to say when or if a volcano like this one near the town of grindavik will erupt. officials took no chances, though, evacuating the population after weeks of tremors. thousands of shakes were felt in november, and all knew what they could bring. thankfully, none were in grindavik town when the volcano around two miles away finally did erupt. this crack in the surface of our world, close to four kilometers or more than two miles long spewing lava. this is as close as the authorities are going to let us to the volcanic eruption in the

southwest of iceland. it's a so-called fissure eruption, that means an eruption along a crack that can be several miles long, rather than on a volcanic cone. now, one of the good things about these eruptions is that, actually, usually they don't spew ash into the atmosphere very high, which can and has in the past disrupted air travel internationally. of course, in a place like iceland, that can have massive effects. previous eruptions in iceland have lasted weeks or even months. in the town of grindavik, the earthquake damage is clear, the lava may follow. >> if this activity goes on, then the big question is, will grindavik be inhabitable in the long run? >> reporter: whether people can ever move back here depends on a new set of geological circumstances being created right now. >> just to give you an idea, guys, of the geological circumstances the folks here in

iceland tell me this area was dormant for 800 years. but in the past two years they have had four major eruptions, none of them nearly the size of the one that's going on right now, guys. >> fred pleitgen, keep us posted, thank you. donald trump's republican rivals rushing to defend him this morning after the colorado supreme court rules he cannot be on the state's primary ballot, how this could all affect the race. and cnn investigates ron desantis and his links to medical marijuana and its market in florida, how key figures courted desantis to get a financial boost and how they gave the governor a political lifeline. it's coming up.

i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by any court. i think he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters of this country. i think this is probably premature and jumping ahead of it, and i think it would cause a lot of anger in this country if people had the choice taken away from them. >> we need elections we can trust. that we can believe in. that means, yes, unelected judges are not going to decide willy nilly across the state who ends up on a ballot and who doesn't. >> but i will beat him fair and square. we don't need judges to make these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions.

>> donald trump's competitors bashing the ruling from the colorado supreme court yesterday that bans trump for now from their primary ballot. >> ron desantis posting on "x" that the u.s. supreme court should reverse the ruling. with us senior political correspondent terry puck. one, this is the most -- you could have predicted these were going to be the responses because nothing lights up the anti, anti trump group of republicans like a legal ruling that they feel like is one-sided. they're all running against him, though. >> it's crazy, right, but, i mean, this is -- i was getting text messages last night from people who are affiliated with these other campaigns, and they're just like, how is this happening before iowa? this is going to turbocharge the base. this is not what we want, we don't want our candidates out there siding with donald trump. again, it reaffirms his argument that he's a political dissident in the biden administration, that the doj is after him, and it's just like, it's the rocket

fuel he needs, it's like another indictment, this case, and it might be overturned before january 4th is when they -- the supreme court is thinking of taking it up. so, if he's vindicated, he's going to take that all the way to iowa on the trail and i just think there's a lot of concern this is going to be wane for him. >> on that point, did any of those campaign people consider the possibility that they could take a different tact? >> well, they're afraid of alienating his base. they are -- and that's why you've never actually seen them go for the jugular and attack trump on the campaign trail. and then he comes out with about 15 people, senators, members of congress, like they're all supporting him, this is only going to activate even more endorsements. it's what he wants. he wants all of washington to line up and support him before iowa, and this is going to help with that. >> john, to phil's good point, david frahm writes about this, he says i'm still a republican, but this is the last exit, the way he puts it, the last exit

for his republican challengers to go after him, and he argues until now they've shown themselves to be too scared to fight, and too weak, the question is, are they too scared, too weak even when the win is presented to them by the courts. this is their last exit, and i guess they drove past it. >> to extend the fmetaphor, yes and that's the absurdity of this situation. this was a party that once prided itself on being constitutional conservatives. i understand everyone's concerned about the base but what trump does is he plays the ref, whenever there's accountability, he tries to make it look like that will be bad politics for the people imposing accountability, even when it's a matter of law in a party that allegedly believes in law and order. the argument campaigns are making in private, see, we told you he'd be a chaos candidate, obviously. this is more chaos. you're going to nominate who could be disqualified from the ballot, all these further unknowns? there's short-term rally around

trump impact it could have but bigger picture, the candidate with stones saying this guy can cannot be the party nominee. too many questions on whether he can hold office. >> is there a fair question to be asked, one of the dissents was that he hasn't been convicted of inciting an insurrection, that's not part of jack smith, the special counsel, chose not to charge on that front. is that a fair -- john thinks that's a mistake. >> it was a mistake. >> do you think that's a fair argument that, look, you can't take someone off if they're not even convicted of inciting an insurrection. >> right, so, it's part of this idea of justice under the law. i also think it's part of this argument that some of the -- one of the dissents, or actually several of the dissents in this case have pointed out is that the due process clause has not been followed in the way that this has been executed. with that being said, i think the other argument to be made is how do you hold someone accountable for their participation in an insurrection, which everyone

saw? and, in fact, if every single level of this case that we've -- you know, that we've seen up to this point, one thing that's been in agreement is that donald trump did participate in an insurrection, that he tried to overthrow democracy. i think there is, you know, the real point of contention is going to be, does he have the right? i mean, to essentially a trial by public, as opposed to a court handing down a decision on these issues. >> i just want to make two additional points to that, first of all, everyone is saying let the people decide. well, that's the argument around 2020, and the people decided, and he tried to overturn the results of the people. keep that in mind, second thing is, in a second impeachment, a majority of members of the house of representatives and senate said he was guilty of insurrection. that was the charge, inciting an insurrection, they did not hit the constitutional threshold for impeachment in the senate to

convict, but majorities of both houses said he had committed insurrection, incited insurrection. that could be relevant going forward. i think it should be relevant. and so, just, you know, all the legalisms around this stuff, keep in mind, the bigger picture, the constitutional principle, and we're in unprecedented territory. we've never had a president try to overturn an election before. >> stay with us, thank you, guys, appreciate it very much. well, triple duty for the supreme court as justices face another trump-related case, they could be getting the ballot case in colorado, almost certain to at this point. we're going to take a closer look at that. also, deadly flooding, up and down the east coast, people trapped, look at that whole family there, we'll go live to one of the hardest-hit places ahead.

well, this morning the

supreme court could face what may be the most, if they take it up, it will be the most consequential election case since bush v. gore 23 years ago, donald trump's team says it will appeal this colorado supreme court decision to the high court. >> now, this adds one more trump-related case to the justice's docket, they've already agreed to hear whether immunity shields him from -- while in office. and the subversion law. >> we're going to bring in joan biscubic. this is totally untested. definitely unprecedented. using the 14th amendment in this way, you make the point, in this way hasn't happened. if the supreme court takes up this case what are they going to have to decide? what's the root of it? >> wow is right, poppy and phil, and the next couple weeks are

going to be epic at the supreme court. so, there are two sort of sets of questions the supreme court would weigh, and there's some procedural ones that i'll mention. just on the pure substance, the question of did he engage in an insurrection? you know what the 14th amendment says, it covers individuals who have engaged in some way in an insurrection, and how is that defined? donald trump has not been convicted of insurrection, but lower court judges have said that, you know, this would apply to the conduct from january 6th, 2021. the other question though came up with a trial court judge in colorado heard the case, does this section of the 14th amendment even apply to the president? that's a very real substantive question. and then, to go to another procedural issue, poppy and phil, who is it that exactly decides whether a certain name is on the ballot or not? here, there's a presumption that it is the state officials in colorado because that's how

they've assessed there. there are some arguments it could only be congress assessing that. the supreme court will have some threshold issues of, you know, timing and who can actually bring such a case, but also very serious substantive ones having to do with, should donald trump even be covered by the 14th amendment section at issue here? >> to ask the layman's term as you guys nerd out over the details, which i learn a ton from every time you guys talk, when is this going to happen? everybody's looking at january 4th or january 5th, but there's no actual timeline, the supreme court can move as fast as they want, i guess. >> oh, no, no, they can move fast. if you look back and think of where we were 23 years ago with bush v. gore, they moved really fast, in a matter of weeks, and then they actually decided the case, you know, like 24 hours after oral arguments. so, they can -- they can move fast. but these issues are very, very difficult, and as you said in the opening, phil, they're also already grandparentaling with

whether donald trump should be immune as he has argued from criminal prosecution and that goes to the pending case right up there now, that special counsel jack smith has brought. so, they've got two cases of great urgency, and let me go back to your original question on the colorado case, and then we'll get to the other one that's pending, the colorado case, the secretary of state has said, you know, at january 5th they have to already start getting things onto the ballot, and last night's opinion has been delayed until at least january 4th. so that trump's lawyers can get to the supreme court, but as i said, we're looking at things happening every other day between now and early january, and it truly is going to be epic, it will not be easy for the supreme court, but they are the nine people who have to decide this once and for all. this and the immunity question, phil and poppy. >> there's no off ramp for this one, joan biscupic, thanks very

much. the campaign has a message for them, chill out, new reporting on the polls inside the's headquarters. new numbers reveal the struggle that these border towns continue to face.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today.

new pole following a trend line that shows there is no clear leader in the race for president. "the new york times" found essentially dead heat between president biden and former president donald trump. that, of course, is making many democrats very nervous, but new reporting from new york magazine suggests people inside the biden campaign itself are, quote, chill. >> joining us the person who wrote the piece, getting a lot of attention, new york magazine's national correspondent gabe dibendetti who spent months reporting within the inner circles of the biden campaign. this is not a headline i would expect. truly that calm, take a chill pill, going to win? >> great question. what i would say is more than total chill, it's more this sense of, guys, seriously, we

know what we're doing, it's this message they've been trying to send to nervous democrats especially all over the country for the last few months, they've been doing these briefings where they essentially say, listen, the election is a year out, a lot's going to change between now and then. what i keep hearing at this point in 2019 no one knew what covid was, trump hadn't been impeached yet. a lot has changed. crucially, this is a point they make over and over a vast majority of the american people have not locked into the fact this is likely going to be a binary choice of trump versus biden, people have not really clicked into this fact, so, for them, they think the dynamics of the race are going to change entirely over the next few months, and they've been building up an infrastructure to get ready for that. but yes, the message is, guys, we know what we're doing, which you can imagine for a lot of people looking at these polls it's not exactly the most reassuring message. >> the way you open the piece, thest a great piece, to your point, there's a lot of nuance,

not just sanguine and zen, just chilling out, they have a process and a plan. but the opening of the piece, the obama reunion, and there's a dramatic difference between obama and obama people and the biden and the biden team, which is much, much smaller. do they care that democrats are freaking out right now? >> listen, you have to understand that a lot of people around biden know that, or believe that the vast majority of the party is going to come around to him, but they look at the last few years, the last ten years, really, and they have a big chip on their shoulder. i'm talking about the real inner circlers here, they think that biden has been consistently underestimated, not just during his time as president, you know, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, or, you know, the midterms when everyone assumed republicans were going to have this big wave and then democrats overperformed with biden as president. but if you look at the 2019 to 2020 experience, a lot of them look at what's happening now and say, you doubted us then, we won that primary, we won that

election, folks, get on board, this is, you know, we know what we're doing here, now, that briefing that i wrote about, you had a number of the top people from biden world, talking to people they used to work with, these obama administration and obama campaign alums trying to run through the game plan here, a lot of people on the obama team said, fine, we get it, it's not going to look good for a while but eventually it will. but a lot of them walked away saying, i get it, i'm not questioning the specific strategy, but are you really meaning to tell us there's nothing else, there's nothing else you can do right now? >> there's a lot that's different now, though, than before. he's older. right? said to be the oldest president. he has the war in israel going on that is really costing him among young voters. do they recognize how many things are different now? >> yeah, absolutely, a message that i got over and over was this can't just be a rerun of

2020, and, you know, in some ways structurally speaking it can't be. that was a covid election, he wasn't campaigning as much. door knocking in person, democrats weren't doing that, which they will this time. the other fundamental thing is, he's the incumbent now, he's the president and has to run on his own record. there's not really like a consensus view of how to message on the age question. how do they even message on the question of the economy which they say all the big numbers are going well but there's a real divide, even within his world over, do we tell people the economy is getting better or as biden himself often likes to say, do we need to acknowledge to voters, we get it, we understand that you're hurting right now. there's not a really easy answer here, but atypically of a reelection campaign, you know, there have been other reelection campaigns where the incumbent is not looking so good, approval rating wise, and then does come back to win, just look at obama himself, in 2012, look at bill clinton. but atypically for that they're really betting this race is not

just a referendum on biden, on the incumbent, it's a stark choice, and that choice is going to click in for people at some point in the new year. >> it's a really great piece, and i'm pretty critical when it comes to covering the white house, or biden campaign, you really kind of nail it and have the nuance of it, even get a peek under the hood of what rob flaherty are working on. i highly suggest you look at it, whether you agree or disagree with the biden team's theory. thanks, man. cnn this morning continues now. ♪ they are weaponizing the -- the annals of government, the architecture of government for political purposes, they're criminalizing politics, and that's what trump is facing. >> we need elections we can trust. that we can believe in. that means, yes, unelected judges are not going to decide willy nilly across the state who ends up on a ballot anwh