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 and who

doesn't. >> well, good morning, everyone, that was vie vek ramaswamy and n desantis reacting to the news overnight. that donald trump is ineligible in colorado to run in 2024. what this means across the country. and later this hour, we're going to hear of the organization behind this lawsuit. the civil rights group taking action against the state of texas over the controversial new border law there, and dozens of documents naming jeffrey epstein's alleged victims and associates to be named public. cnn this morning starts now. ♪ well, historic and unprecedented can be overused at times this day and age, but here's a look at the front page headlines america is waking up to this morning. donald trump, the republican front runner, disqualified from the ballot in colorado. it is a stunning and, yes,

historic ruling that could have huge implications for the 2024 presidential election, trump is vowing to take this case all the way to the supreme court, just weeks before primary season kicks off. >> colorado's supreme court decided trump cannot be on the state's primary ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. they're citing the 14th amendment of the constitution which was ratified after the civil war. the justices on the high court, a majority of them, deciding that trump directly participated in the plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power on january 6th. >> while trump didn't waste any time fund-raising off the ruling, about 12 minutes after the news alerts, his campaign blasting out emails asking for money, democrats are trying to keep trump off the ballot to prevent him from beating president biden. we have team coverage at the courthouse in denver to the campaign trail in iowa along with expert legal analysis, let's start off in colorado with lucy kafanov outside. what's the feeling on the ground

right now in the wake of this really, really stunning moment? >> reporter: i don't think anyone expected this, phil and poppy, the reaction here surprising, remarkable, unprecedented, and the judges acknowledging that at the top of their opinion, writing about the weight and magnitude of this decision to disqualify and bar donald trump from the colorado primary. and even though this only impacts the state of colorado, if implications could be national. ♪ i won't forget the men ♪ >> reporter: former president donald trump kicked off the 2024 primary ballot in colorado. >> we've never had a president inside an insurrection and try to run for the presidency again. >> reporter: in an unprecedented decision tuesday the colorado supreme court ruled trump is disqualified due to his actions on january 6th, citing section 3 of the 14th amendment which barred anyone who, quote, engaged in insurrection to run for office. the court writing, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. we are mindful of the magnitude

and weight of the questions now before us. >> we think this is an absurd ruling. >> reporter: colorado republican party chair dave williams slamming the decision. >> donald trump has not been charged, nor convicted of insurrection, and we shouldn't be making these types of decisions that take away people's right to vote. >> reporter: the trump campaign vowing a swift appeal, saying we have full confidence that the u.s. supreme court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-american lawsuits. colorado secretary of state jenna griswold. >> i, of course, will follow whatever court order or decision is in place by the time that we certify the ballot. >> reporter: on the campaign trail trump's gop rivals appearing to back him in the court's decision. >> 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. >> we don't need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions.

>> reporter: and florida governor ron desantis, calling it abuse of judicial power, and calling on the supreme court to reverse it. voters in colorado offering mixed opinions. >> that's great, he's a crook, so good riddance. >> i think that cannot decide who i'm voting for. so because it's my own decision, it's not the court's decision who i'm voting for. >> reporter: now, poppy, it is very important to stress that this is not the final word, the supreme court here staying its decision until january 4th to allow the trump team to appeal and of course the trump team already vowing to take this to the highest court in the land. poppy? >> lucy, thank you very much for that reporting on the ground there. now to cnn's jeff zeleny in des moines, iowa, jeff, the trump campaign, the rest of the republican field, we heard from some of them at the top of the show, how is everybody responding this morning? >> reporter: look, phil, the

former president was uncharacteristically silent about this, the ruling happened just a few minutes before he took the stage last night in waterloo, iowa. his supporters were talking about this, but he did not mention it at all. his campaign, of course, though, is calling it un-american, as you heard there in lieu lucy's report. we've seen the same playbook throughout this year, even his republican rivals from chris christie to nikki haley to ron desantis essentially are siding with donald trump. they are saying that judges and courts should not weigh in on this. so, what this reminds me of, virtually exactly, are the first indictments we saw earlier this year, the alan bragg case in manhattan. very similar feeling to the republican wagons are being circled around the former president even from some of his rivals. as we sit here in iowa 26 days before the voting begins in this presidential campaign, donald trump seems stronger than ever,

at least for now, we will see as voters sort of, you know, absorb this news. but certainly last night he had a lot of defenders. >> jeff, touch a good point, the number of times i heard last night the analog to the new york d.a. indictments and how the party reacted to that, the difference, of course, as you noted, 26 days until voters vote, until the caucus actually starts, this comes as nikki haley was kind of having a burst to some degree, particularly in new hampshire, does this clang the -- change the race at all? >> we will see. he has a commanding lead of this race, and this has become a race for second place, it's hard to imagine it changing that, except it crowds out all of the other news and we talked to several trump supporters and take a listen to julie hypele, she summed up the sentiment from many trump admirers who are here in iowa. >> it's not right that they should take him off the ballot, it's what the people want. isn't it odd that everything

that he does they attack him for, they file court proceedings against him, but the democrats can get away with everything. >> so, essentially blaming democrats, of course, that is a pretty broad brush here, democrats locally or the biden administration have nothing to do with this, of course, but those are true trump supporters. the question is, there are many republicans who have open minds and are interested in turning the page, they may be about half the party or slightly less, we will see, you know, if any of them speak up today, but phil, it really is reminiscent of so many chapters of the same book we've seen this year, and now election interference once again is trump's rallying cry. >> such a good point. i would be stunned to hear any of them speak up against the former president today. jeff zeleny, thank you. let's hear from elie honig, walk us through this. why does the 14th amendment apply here and what got us to the colorado supreme court? >> always a good idea to start with the actual constitution

itself, we're talking about the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, after the civil war. section 3 tells us no person shall hold any office who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, makes sense, fairly straightforward. it gets more complicated when we get to the question of how does this work? if we jump ahead to section 5 of the same 14th amendment, it tells us that congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. congress here, means the federal, united states congress, they can pass laws to enforce this, but they haven't done so in 150 years, which leaves us in a little bit of uncertainty. nonetheless, the colorado state court has a state law proceeding under colorado law that they can use in some circumstances, not specific to insurrection, on election questions. >> makes a difference in the other states that have considered this. >> it does, it's one of the arguments that we heard, a state court judge held a five-day hearing back in october, and november, primarily looked at the january 6th committee

hearing and that judge concluded, an interesting ruling, that yes, donald trump did engage in insurrection. however the trial court judge said the president somehow does not qualify as an officer of the united states, that took a little bit of verbal parsing, but that was the ruling, and therefore that judge ruled donald trump is still on the ballot because the president is not subject to the 14th amendment, and that's what landed us yesterday in front of the colorado supreme court. >> now what will likely land us before the high court of the country, before the -- the supreme court on these questions of fact, and the question of law here. >> exactly. so this is what happened yesterday in the colorado supreme court, we have seven justices, notably all of them appointed by democratic governors. this was a 4-3 ruling, the four in the majority. their ruling was, donald trump engaged in overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection, and yes, president does count as an official, therefore the majority in the colorado supreme court said he's out. he's off the ballot. the dissent here, i think is also really interesting, again, this was a 4-3 ruling, i think this is a really important quote

from the dissent. one of the justices wrote, even if we're convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past, dare i say engaged in an insurrection, there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office, and it's important to get at sort of the landscape here to understand why the colorado decision that we saw yesterday is an outlier. if we look at the entire united states, and there are a lot of these challenges, colorado now stands alone, the only state that's thrown donald trump off the -- off the ballot. six other states have rejected outright this type of challenge, and then in a dozen or so other states colored yellow here, the plaintiffs, the people who have sued, have pulled back, withdrawn their lawsuits. so colorado is on an island, so to speak, at this point. >> can we just talk finally about, what is said in the dissent is due process? >> yes. >> and as you pointed out earlier in the program, that is also part of the 14th amendment, it is section 1. >> right. >> of the 14th amendment. is that at the core of what the supreme court is going to decide here?

>> yeah, so next up, i think, in all likelihood, is the united states supreme court, this case, the hearing that happened was here in the district court, went right up to the colorado supreme court, but really important to understand, the u.s. supreme court, the big one, they can review rulings, even, that came up through the state system. the way this stands at the moment is the colorado supreme court said it's all on hold until january 4th. and it appears to be when donald trump goes to the supreme court it's all on hold until they decide. so, at the moment nothing is final. the u.s. supreme court is almost certainly going to take this up, and i think the crux of the focus here is going to be, do we know the process was a proper process followed? i don't think the supreme court's actually going to get into the question of did he engage in insurrection or not, i think they're focused on due process. >> elie, thank you very much. phil? coverage of the historic ruling continues this morning. and right now, in maine, 14 counties are still in a civil state of emergency after that

intense storm that swept through, officials say there are nearly 100 roads closed because of this flooding, downed trees and power lines, and destroyed infrastructure. at this hour, more than 280,000 customers in that state without power, our crew is assessing the damage in maine's hard-hit capital city, a live report ahead.

i think we have a chance at the supreme court, first of all trump is going to have to convince the supreme court to take this case, and i can imagine a world in which the supreme court says this is pretty early on in the election cycle, let's see how this plays out in some other states first. >> that was an attorney for the plaintiffs in the colorado 14th amendment case, a trump campaign spokesman called the state's supreme court ruling, quote, a completely flawed decision, and promised to swiftly file an appeal to the u.s. supreme court. joining us now tim parlatore, we appreciate your time this morning, to that point, do you see a chance the supreme court ends up siding with the colorado ruling last night?

>> you know, i really don't. i read the decision last night, and it was striking to me how little attention they paid to the federal statutes that are applicable here. you know, congress has enacted a statute, it's 18 usc 2383, that deals with insurrection, and that specifically is the statute that disqualifies running for public office. and, you know, one of the dissenters did point out that this is the proper procedure, but the majority essentially said, well, it doesn't say that's the only procedure so we can ignore it. i do think that that statute is really where the supreme court is going to focus their attention and likely overturn this. >> it's been striking that some of the biggest advocates for the 14th amendment, for moving forward on this, have been kind of pillars or respected people in the conservative legal movement, including judge michael ludic, this is what he said last night. >> their opinion is unassailable

under the objective law of the federal constitution, in section 3 of the 14th amendment, the supreme court of the united states ought to affirm this decision today. >> tim, he also said that this court, and kind of framing itself as a textualist, originalist court. if that's the case they have to rule in favor or be supportive of the ruling last night. do you disagree with that on its face, is this a technicality issue than an actual issue of the original text? >> i do disagree with that and i think that part of the problem is, a lot of people look at this ruling through the lens of what their own personal political desires are, and the reality is, you know, like i said, there's an insurrection statute on the books, nobody's been charged with it. you know, several grand juries looked at this, you know, they looked at it with all of the protesters, they looked at it

with donald trump. one grand jury came close, and they charged the members of the oath keepers with 18 usc 2384, seditious conspiracy, which as the colorado supreme court correctly noted, sedition is one step below insurrection, and so this is something that has been examined by the grand jury sitting in d.c., and has been specifically rejected. so for a colorado supreme court to weigh into this and say, we know better than the criminal grand juries who actually heard directly from the firsthand, you know, witnesses, and firsthand evidence, i don't think that that's something that's going to be sustainable. and i also think it's a problem that when you have the courts -- sorry. >> no, i was going to ask, is that a threshold? i think the ambiguity to some degree is what leads to these differences of opinion, even those who may be ideologically aligned. is it explicit the threshold -- something said explicitly by a

court that insurrection happened. >> yes. i mean, that's the thing, is that to disqualify somebody you have to have a court that says there was an insurrection, and that this person you know was a participant in the insurrection, and so, you know, when i look at it, i say there are courts that are well equipped to study that question. and they're in d.c. you know, there are grand juries who studied this exact question, and they've rejected it. and so, you know, for that -- us to then go around the country and have a whole bunch of state court, state supreme courts come to their own independent conclusions, you know, that's something where you're going to have a significant split of inconsistent verdicts, you're going to have some states that say, oh, he's disqualified and so therefore he's not on the ballot, some that say, oh, no, this was not an insurrection. if you read the colorado supreme court decision they're saying that he is ineligible to be president and let's say this decision stands but the other 49

states go the other way. and let's say he's elected. you know, even though he isn't on the ballot in colorado. does this decision that empowered the colorado governor to say well, he's an illegitimate president and so the federal government has no power over the state of colorado? it's a problem, and this is one of the reasons why the supreme court is going to have to step in to at least set one single standard nationwide. >> yeah, the lack of precedent here is both fascinating and probably slightly unsettling, given the stakes. i do want to ask you to take a step back for a minute, when you look at the year ahead, not just an election year, but also the sheer number of cases of dates of filings, the trump campaign officials, susie wild, one of his top advisers called it an absolute nightmare, explain to people, what are the next couple months going to look lick with all of this on the plate? >> oh, it's a complete disaster. you know, between all of the civil and the criminal cases, they're going to be doing

everything they can, i opt suspect, to try to run out the clock and try and push as many of these things out past november as they possibly can. yeah, the d.c., january 6th case, yeah, i think that that one's already well on its way, because of the -- the supreme court, not only the supreme court potentially taking up the interlocutory issue, but also examining the applicability of the obstruction charge, related to the january 6th case. you know, certainly the mar-a-lago case, that one is going to get pushed out. you've got to remember. most criminal cases in the federal court, they take over two years to get to trial. the idea of trying to jam them all into an election season is something that is in and of itself unprecedented, and trying to jam multiple in is really very -- a very unique circumstance. so i think that really what you're going to see is all of these, you know, aspects of the legal team is they're going to try and push things out past

november, the challenge is going to be, if they come straight out and say it, as they have in the past, of, hey, let's adjourn this thing for over a year because we want to wait until after the election, that's going to get rejected but if you instead go to the judges and say these are all the things going on, this is what our bandwidth is, how many documents they just gave us, we're not able to be prepared for trial in the defendant's rights are going to be substantively impaired by forcing them to go to trial before he's ready, that's something the judges will buy and they'll push it out a piece at a time. they'll push it out three, four months at a time and they'll keep pushing it out past the election, i suspect. >> you note there's not a lot of precedent in terms of the timetable and not a lot of precedent for the top republican candidate to have 91 indictments against him, so we're very uncharted territory here, tim parlatore, thank you. >> it is, thank you. >> fascinating discussion showing how complex this all is

ahead. meantime to texas where civil rights groups are going after a controversial new law in that state on immigration that makes it illegal to cross into the state, makes it a state crime, we'll take you live to the border. is it death toll from an earthquake in china rose to 131 people last night. new video shows the destruction at the epicenter. this surveillance video shows people running out of a sports bar the moment that 5.9 earthquake struck. you can see it right there, right now rescuers are working to reach survivors in frigid 14 degree temperatures, we'll be right back.

welcome back, two civil rights groups are suing texas over its controversial new border law, it gives police power to arrest migrants and allows judges to remove them as authorities struggle to process the surge of migrants seeking to cross the border. the aclu and texas civil rights project argued it's unconstitutional and could lead to racial profiling. >> rosa flores is live at the border. what more are you learning about the lawsuit and what comes next here? >> reporter: well, the plaintiffs in this case are two non-profit organizations and the county of el paso, and what they

claim is that this law is unconstitutional, that it oversteps federal authorities, and also federal protections like asylum, and the county of el paso says it's going to cost them millions upon millions of dollars, now, for his part, governor greg abbott maintains that the law is constitutional, and that he's ready to take this legal fight all the way to the u.s. supreme court. but let me show you exactly why el paso county, the localities are so concerned about this, take a look behind me, this is el paso -- eagle pass, texas, and what this is is thousands of migrants waiting to be transported for federal immigration processing. now, this is the responsibility of the federal government to apprehend and to hold these vimgs. now, with us before, with the new creation of this state law that makes the illegal entry into the state of texas a state crime, this could be the issue, the problem of the state, and in particular, localities.

local county judges, and also sheriffs, for example, and so that's the big concern here. now, all this, as we are learning more about what is driving this surge, now we learned from a cbp official that there are pseudo travel agencies that are promising people in other parts of the world, travel to the united states, but they are ultimately connecting them to smuggling organizations south of the border and that these smuggling organizations are crossing very large groups into the united states at random locations on the u.s. southern border, in groups of 500, or even a thousand individuals at one point in time, and that that is what's overwhelming u.s. border patrol. now, phil and poppy, i want to leave you with this, we also learned from the cbp official that cbp is resourced for half of the volume of the apprehensions that they're seeing in one -- in any particular day, now, yesterday,

in a 24-hour period, a apprehensions were at about -- cbp, the law enforcement agency supposed to keep border security resourced for half of the volume of apprehensions, highlighting by the white house is congress need to do something about this issue on the u.s. southern border. phil and poppy. >> the numbers are absolutely staggering, rosa, thank you for the reporting there from eagle pass, texas. new overnight, a local philadelphia news helicopter crashed in new jersey, killing two people on board. according to the station's website the pilot and the photographer from their news team were killed, names of the victims are not released until their families are notified. wpbi officials say the chopper crashed into a wooded area of washington township returning from an assignment on the jersey shore. the station said an investigation into the crash is under way, our thoughts with both the station and their families. >> all of them. next, our coverage of this unprecedented ruling out of the colorado supreme court

continues. former president donald trump has been removed from the state's 2024 ballot because of the insurrectionist ban, we'll talk about it. next, a member of the group that filed this lawsuit is with us.

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 want to see this in the hands of the voters, we're going to win this the right way. we're going to do what we need to do, but the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the ballot.

>> those are republican presidential candidates responding to the colorado supreme court decision overnight to disqualify donald trump from the state's ballot, the group that brought the case says the ruling is, quote, justified, and necessary for the future of our democracy. joining us this morning, noah bookbinder, the president and ceo for responsibility of ethics in washington, it's his organization that filed this lawsuit. noah, good morning, thank you for being with us, you prevailed here, so far, that is your argument, that it is necessary for the future of democracy, what about those that say actually not letting the voters have their say is anti thet call to democracy? >> yeah, the problem with that is that we tried that already. in 2020 voters had a chance to decide if they wanted donald trump to be president, they decided that they didn't, and what happened after that was donald trump refused to accept that result, and incited a violent insurrection to try to keep himself in power despite having lost. there's simply no reason to

think that somehow we can do it this way and it will come out differently. that's why the framers of the 14th amendment put this provision into the constitution, it was specifically meant to defend the republic from those who have attacked it in the past. attacked the democracy in the past. that's what we have here, and, you know, the constitution sets out what the qualifications are to be president of the united states, you've got to be 35 years old, you have to be a -- >> born here? >> born here. you can't have served two terms, and you can't have engaged in insurrection. those are the rules of this democracy. >> we just dig into the law a little bit. when you read into section 3 of the 14th amendment, the language, which is what the supreme court, if they take this up, is going to assess, quote, having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states. that part doesn't say president, and here's what ty cobb, former white house lawyer under trump

and very critical of trump, here's what he said about this, listen. >> and, to the extent that the president or the vice president are included as an officer, or included within the admonitions of the constitution, they are typically highlighted, like in the impeachment clause, which specifically says president, vice president. so, i think this case will be handled quickly. i think it would be 9-0 in the supreme court for trump. >> he said the high court could rule unanimously against you, noah, why do you think you could prevail there? >> look, that was a big focus of the argument in front of the colorado supreme court. it's a big focus of the decision that came out yesterday. and what it says is that actually, the language of the constitution in a lot of different parts is very clear that the presidency is an office of the united states. the debate over this provision in the 14th amendment was made

very clear that all offices, including the president, were meant to be included, you know, there's discussion of dictionaries and common understanding at the time, we think, actually, it's very clear from the history and the language that this was meant to include all officers, that includes the president, and just logically, it simply doesn't make sense that the framers of the 14th amendment wanted to protect the country from those who had rebelled against it, those who had engaged in insurrection, except for the very top person who could do the most damage. it doesn't make logical sense, and we think the support is not there in the language or the history for that argument. we're pretty confident about that one going forward. >> you're looking at the majority of these justices being textualists and originalists and looking at it that way to arguably be in your favor but i was struck by the dissent, noah,

from three of the justices, let me read you one of the dissents on this court, from justice carlos -- quote, even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past, dare i say engaged in an insurrection, there must be procedural due process before we can declare that an individual is disqualified from holding public office. he writes, i am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by imprudent, unconstitutional and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate section 3 disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis. what he is saying is, what does this do to our republic, beyond trump, if this is what it is, then what? how is this not portend chaos? >> well, look, our elections are run by the states, states on a routine basis decide the qualification of candidates. we've had decisions in colorado, and a whole lot of other states about the age of a candidate, whether they were born in the

united states. and, you know, on process i think it's really important to bear in mind, as i think the majority of this court did, that this is a situation where you didn't have a court making an arbitrary decision, there was, in fact, extensive process. in the trial court held a multi-day evidentiary hearing with testimony from law enforcement officers, members of congress, experts, other government officials, organizers of the january 6th protests, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents. the colorado supreme court reviewed that entire record, there was able advocacy from all sides, top lawyers, republicans and democrats, there was a tremendous amount of process. in. this is the only case in the country where there has been that kind of proceeding. and reviewing all of that, this court found -- the trial court found that donald trump engamged in insurrection, this court found that donald trump is

disqualified. i think the evidence is actually quite overwhelming when there is that kind of very comprehensive process. >> before you go, noah, you told our colleague abby phillip, colorado won't be the last stop. where is next? >> i think the first thing that we need to do is to focus on this case, defending this really important ruling, so that's going to be our focus in the immediate term. i am confident that other states will be looking at this, but we're taking this one step at a time. >> noah bookbinder, thanks very much. >> thank you. well, next, cnn looks into the very first bill florida governor ron desantis signed into law and how it raises questions about his record of catering to campaign donors and special interests. >> the reason why ron desantis became govovernor of floridada because e of a littltle plant cd cannnnabis.

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.

republican presidential candidate ron desantis is criticizing donald trump for failing to drain the swamp in washington while he was in the white house but desantis made a similar pledge in his campaign for florida governor. a cnn investigation the raising questions about his record on special interests and campaign donors, as randi kaye reports it has to do with legalizing smokeable, medical marijuana in the state. >> thank you. >> reporter: after ron desantis

was elected governor of florida in 2018 the very first bill he signed into law legalized smokeable 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. >> reporter: 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've drained the swamp in here. >> reporter: that all sounds good but did he really drain the swamp? turns out, true leave, one of the leading medical marijuana companies in the u.s. today, contributed $50,000 to the florida gop, which helped pay for desantis's campaign ads. true leave then boasted of record profits just months after desantis signed that law, telling investors that patient growth was driven primarily by the introduction of smokeable flower, which by then constituted half of its sales in

florida. florida -- turned marijuana entrepreneur jason parazolo was among those who co-hosted fundraisers for desantis, weeks before election day in 2018. cnn obtained this exclusive video. that's parazolo arriving for the fundraiser with republican congressman matt gaetz who as a state lawmaker in 2014 introduced legislation that became florida's first marijuana law. he's saying he never discussed it with desantis, at the party, florida state representative hallsey baa sheers, his family's tree farm joined with other nurseries to become trulieve, which donated to desantis' campaign, all three with ties to florida's marijuana industry. >> 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. >> reporter: 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 little plant called cannabis. >> reporter: that's lev parnis, one-time associate of rudy giuliani and donald trump. in may of 2018 when ron desantis's campaign for governor was in trouble parnis says desantis sought him out. you met him at the trump hotel. >> he approached me, introduced himself to me, told me he's running for the governor of florida. >> reporter: were you traveling in trump circles at that time then? >> very much so. >> reporter: if his name sounds familiar to you that may be because . >> congratulations. >> he coordinated with giuliani to dig up dirt on joe biden in ukraine. parnas was also convicted of trying to illegally secure recreational marijuana licenses

in other states and sentenced to 20 months in prison last year. during our interview at his florida home, parnas told us desantis came to him seeking help for his struggling gubernatorial campaign. did desantis make it clear to you he needed trump's endorsement? >> absolutely. that's how he approached me. >> reporter: when he met desantis, he was looking to get into the lucrative marijuana industry in florida. desantis had previously take an stand against marijuana. as a u.s. congressman he voted against making cannabis more accessible to veterans. >> he was not pro cannabis. how can i support you against things that i personally believe in? >> reporter: parnas says desantis had a change of heart. >> he would be willing to look at cannabis in a different light. i was like, whoa, that was a quick shift. >> reporter: 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 if you could get trump to endorse me, i will change my mind about legalized medical marijuana here? >> no, i don't recall us having an exact conversation like a quid pro quo type of a situation, but the whole conversations was a quid pro quo. >> reporter: he went to rudy giuliani and convinced him to get trump to endorse desantis which trump did in june 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 hugs and congratulate -- i congratulations him and he says, thanks, we did it. >> under desantis, medical marijuana has become an estimated $1.8 billion industry in florida.

on his first day as governor, there were fewer than 100 dispensaries in the state. now nearly 600, serving more than 800,000 floridians. lev parnas says he didn't benefit from the growth. cnn wunable to independently verify parnas' account. desantis returned parnas' $50,000 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 have had a hand in securing trump's endorsement for desantis but insists he played a key role. would you have connected trump and desantis if desantis hadn't changed his mind on marijuana? >> no. never. >> reporter: candy kay, cpr, boca raton, florida. >> thank you for that report. dozens of documents namery jeffrey epstein's alleged victims and associates could be

made public in the new year. that's next. and new video of smoke rising over gaza after a suspected airstrike comes as israel introduces a new proposal for a pause in fighting in exchange for hostages. live in tel aviv with the latest on negotiations.

150 much jeffery epstein's alleged victims and associates are set to be revealed. a federal judge is recording the unsealed of previously econtacted documents referencing multiple individuals referred to as a john or jane doe as public figures. kara, what are we expecting to see? >> this is part of a lawsuit. it's the documents they recovered during the discovery process. this could be anything from

deposition testimony where someone's name is mentioned in the deposition or it could be like a calendar entry or emails. we don't know the scope of what it's going to be. this has been a lengthy litigation process and the judge ordered monday the unsealing of the names. it's not going to be a list of people. she went individually through all of these people, more than 150 names, and going through why they would be unsealed. so she wrote in this -- this was a thing she wrote in a lot of things, the material should be unsealed. first this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing and thus not meet the burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. another thing she noted is these e names were public. they had given interviews with the media. they made themselves public and there were also names that came out during the course of the trial. there are names that will not be made public, some of the victims that were minors at the time. she is saying those will not be made public.

the vast majority seem to be people in his orbit. the judge noted some are not salacious but names sincluded te in the documents. now so much has already come out to the public, she is saying that there is no reason to keep it sealed anymore going forward. if anyone objects to this, she is giving them 14 days to appeal this decision. if not, these names will be public just right around january 2nd, the first of the year. >> wow. fascinating. it's been long running. thank you. "cnn this morning" continues right now. >> the fact of the matter is 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 that the gravity of that in itself is just remarkable. we've never had a president inside an insurrection and then try to run for