a constitutional crossroads unlike anything in this nation's history. donald trump is barred from the republican primary ballet. he is not eligible to run for president they are due to the 14th amendment's insurrections band. it is not the final word. i could come from the u.s. supreme court. now trump is fundraising from this ruling. >> the matter of trump being disqualified is up to the courts. backing the insurrection, that is already settled. take a listen. >> i think some things are self- evident. we saw it all. he supported insurrection.

no question about it. none. zero. >> he aligned with a key part of this fourth opinion in colorado. the majority writing that trump did not only insight the insurrection, even when the seas was underway, he repeatedly demanded that pence refused to perform his constitutional duty and calling senators to stop the counting of electoral votes. this was a voluntary participation in the insurrection. >> john, great to see you, what happens next in this case? >> all paths are leading to the supreme court. first of all, we have the january 4th deadline that the supreme court set.

saying they will put it on hold. his name should not be on the ballot. putting a ruling on hold. if he appeals to the supreme court, he could be on hold indefinitely. on january 5th, the secretary of state is going to certify the republican primary names where donald trump's name would be on. if the supreme court does not step in and decide this quickly and definitively. >> has the or look at any similar cases? and decided to take anything off that could give us any idea where they might fall on this? >> absolutely not. this is a post-civil war amendment that was used extensively against confederates for the insurrection and rebellion. it has not been tested at all. no. so many issues from this

colorado ruling. some distinct to colorado. more fundamentally, this will dictate what happens nationwide. can a former president that was never convicted of insurrection be kept off the ballot because of this provision? another issue that was decided in the opposite direction by another colorado judge. it does not even fall under it. it is only for other officers. fresh ground for the u.s. supreme court to decide. and only the supreme court can decide this question. >> section 3 does not mention the president as being part of that. not to confuse things, trump is already at the supreme court over the issue of immunity in a special counsel case. >> he will file at 4:00 p.m. eastern today about how he's going to fight the petition from the supreme court to quickly decide if former

president trump should be immune from criminal prosecution for election interference. subversion of the election results. he has been found by the trial court judge to be liable for that kind of thing and have to go to trial. he should not be able to claim immunity. being tested now in the federal appeals work. trying to jump over the appeals court and get the supreme court to resolve it. in the colorado situation, there is only one bench in america that can say definitively on the immunity question and it can only say on the 14th amendment one. smith wants the court to do it. likely by 4:00 p.m. today, he will say no. let the lower court handle it first and then the supreme court will come in. he is very well known for running the clock. >> we could potentially see joan before. thank you. let's bring in the former u.s.

attorney and u.s. history -- how do you see this playing out at the supreme court? >> we are so far off road hearing this case to go off. the supreme court is going to come in. they have a few different ways to reverse that can rely on the language of the provision. he is not included as a president and the officer part. this is too much of a loosey- goosey definition of insurrection. this is a fundamental one about judicial power. that is what the other states that have not passed on the question said. this as important a command as it might be. not for the courts to decide. that will be the question, front and center. it is completely unprecedented.

is the court the right person to make the call? >> doug, you can speak to this. how extraordinary this moment is. considering what we are talking about. this provision of the constitution. with confederates after the civil war. >> when it was supposed to deal with confederates, it was talking about people like jefferson davis. people who would deny that back then, abraham lincoln was a legitimate president. they did the right thing in 1868. it does not say that word, president, nh. that is what donald trump will be with his lawyers taking to the supreme court. they should not apply to me. it has been a battle for a few

years now. i think the key to this, he was part of the insurrection or is that the wrong word? a rally that some hooligans went amok. that has been the big argument between democrats and republicans. we heard president biden really lay down hard. this was not insurrection. it is about what is the meaning of that word? is he going to be lumped in with section 3? as a former president? yeah? >> sorry, doug, i did not mean to interrupt you there. >> i was just going to say that the election denial has been going on and on. we knew this would get to the supreme court at some point. donald trump is going to fund raise on this. he will probably end up being on the ballot in the end. a huge legal moment.

if this section of the 14th amendment does not apply to trump, it should be gotten rid of. obviously, this is what they were meaning in 1868. >> talk a little bit more about that definition of insurrection and why it is so key when the court looks at this? >> it is one of two ways on the terms. i really think the action here is going to be on if the court should do it at all. insurrection, were not sure what the definition is. what trump did covers it. they cannot make factual findings. that is not their job. there is no violation of federal law in what they did. in a bitterly divided supreme court, i fear that you might have a bitterly divided u.s.

supreme court. like bush versus gore. you have an unbelievably wild couple weeks coming up in the supreme court. they need to decide this by the fourth. they have the immunity issue where they have been asked to jump the gun. the courts will be staying up very late if they are sleeping at all. >> hopefully catering will be provided for them in this process. i'm glad that harry brought up bush versus gore. they are now thrust into the center of the presidential election. is there president for anything like that in u.s. history? >> we are in uncharted territory. the bottom line is that the clock is ticking. the media coverage of january 6th will be next. remember, it was a 5-4 vote in

the supreme court. sandra day o'connor was making that decision. we had her memorial service yesterday in washington. many people thought that bush 43 was a false president for months. half of the country is going to not like what the supreme court determines here. they will try to find a way to not have their fingerprints all over it. anything with donald trump in the next month will have issue after issue of being booted to the supreme court. >> that will be very pivotal. when it comes to the decision of that court as well. thank you so much to both of you. the political fallout from the 2024 race from this ruling. how republicans are reacting.

as pressure grows on the israel government to bring hostages home, new hope today of a possible deal. the latest on negotiations. the mother of a 10-year-old that was arrested for urinating in public. we will be speaking with her this hour.

shortly after the colorado supreme court disabled donald trump from the primary, tapping the decision as election interference and asked for money to join the fight. >> trump would quote, not let the left wing judges steal the votes. let's bring in only enough for details on this. what are you hearing?

>> this is unsurprising coming from the former president's campaign. we have seen this strategy implemented every time that donald trump has had some kind of legal challenge. they are going to attack this decision as political. the judges in this case are bias against him. and of course, try to raise money off of his legal misfortune. this is a strategy for my conversations with donald trump's team, it is really effective. the indictment brought against him, he did enjoy a boost in polling and donations in those. his team thinks that he will continue to enjoy a similar type of effect following this decision. i want to point out some reporting that i have on the campaign next steps and how they plan to respond to this decision. a memo from a trump campaign

official. laying out the next steps moving forward. his lawyers will file a appeal to the supreme court to try and fight this. the supreme court will take of their appeal swiftly. they will end up having more luck with higher courts and the supreme court ruling in donald trump's favor. that is how the campaign is thinking about it with no information on how the work will rule at this point. >> we want to play sound bite of the rivals reacting to this decision by the supreme court. let's play. >> i do not believe that donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by any court. you should be prevented by the voters of this country. >> we need elections we can trust. that we can believe in.

yes, judges will not decide across the state, who was on the ballot and who doesn't. >> we don't need to have judges making these decisions. we need voters to make these decisions. >> perhaps it is not really a surprise at this point the way they have not really gone after trump with the exception of chris christie. >> look, i think these candidates are being put in a very tough position. they are crisscrossing iowa and new hampshire trying to distinguish themselves from the former president to remind voters that they do have a choice in this presidential race. they are being forced to defend donald trump in light of his legal issues. we saw several comments defending the president after his indictment brought against him earlier this year. you look at the republican party at large and you look at voters, many of them are very angry with how donald trump is

being treated byhe court. that is why you are seeing this response. one candidate we did not show was the florida governor, ron desantis. he had a very interesting response. he tried to turn the argument on its head. it's unfair, it shows that donald trump has an electability problem. he will push that argument going forward. >> very interesting. thank you for that report. we will discuss this further with gloria. what do you think of this ruling? >> it allows donald trump to play the professional victim, which he is really good at. the news, which was not good for the campaign can be turned into something positive for that. we saw that his opponents once again, having to defend him which is something they

probably don't want to do. there they are, saying that the words should not be doing this. he is fundraising off of this. one more thing of the weapon rising of the justice system that he will use, successfully, in the same way he has used these things before. >> the jujitsu the way that he can take bad news and make it positive, that is not something i have seen before. >> it is remarkable. with any other candidate. 91 felony charges would put you in a box that you would not be able to get out of. when donald trump, it helps him. he is convinced his followers, many in the republican party that these are politically motivated. he is the victim and he plays the card over and over again with great success. >> we have former republican congressman with us.

thank you so much for being with us. your reaction to this ruling? >> as gloria said, he is a professional victim. i've never seen a politician or a man or a human being be such a victim and so much complaining. this just builds into that. from a political perspective, the way i think of things, i think this is probably good for donald trump. it probably builds into that whole narrative that the whole system is after me. the thing i struggle with and the reason i can't give a definitive answer is that the constitution exist for a reason. as not a constitutional lawyer, have to leave it up to the judges on the supreme court to decide what this means when it

comes to donald trump. these things are put into place not because they are anti- democratic. they knew, the founders, the authors and writers that there would be a moment with public pressure wanting them to do something and they put these guardrails in place saying, no you can't. there would be a moment when someone would do something very anti-democratic. i can't give you a definitive answer. it is bad for politics and good for donald trump. i'm still back and forth on this idea of the constitution, just for a reason. donald trump performs the insurrection. for 187 minutes he watched it unfold and did absolutely nothing. until law enforcement could turn the tide against them.

>> what about chris christie, one of the rarities here in this field, no problem taking a swing at donald trump. he is having issues with this. what do you make of that? >> a legitimate point of view. people think this is not the way to go, they have a legitimate point of view. whoever i hear speak about it, i'm leaning that way. i also think from a candidate perspective, the one thing you don't want to do is show you will rely on the 14th amendment to be donald trump. if he wants to take trump on, he is the only one doing it. i think that was the right answer to give. i will beat him on the battlefield. and he could not come out and say, the 14th amendment is great. it will look like he's trying to hurt the system.

everyone makes a compelling case. it is up to the supreme court to decide. >> we hardly ever see this collision of politics and the justice system collide. the way it is colliding right now. i guarantee you that the justices on the supreme court do not want to do this. they already are going to take up the immunity case. to put before the supreme court. they have to deal with that. now they have to deal with a 14th amendment case. they don't like to get involved in these political arguments. it only hurt the reputation of the court. now a reputation that is not so great, starting from a different level. the matter what they do, they will be criticized for it. there are really two sides, honest people can disagree,

what is the insurrection? does this apply to the united states? you have to dig into the constitution to interpret it and how it was written. it is very complex. it is throwing a grenade right into the presidential election. >> certainly. so many questions here. we very much appreciate the perspective. thanks. the hostage crisis in israel is becoming a political crisis. the prime minister's uncertain grip on power. and what is fueling the migrants on the southern border. certain travel agencies. will get into the details when we come back.

(singing )i'll be home for christmas you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree. kids at shriner's hospitals for children are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and that's only possible because of the monthly donations from people like you. thanks to a generous donor every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. with your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day.

we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you. disturbing new images coming out of gaza. elderly people being carried from the site of the explosion in raw file. the southern part of gaza. these explosions were caused by israeli airstrikes which killed and wounded several people. >> that is in southern gaza.

many palestinians are seeking refuge after israelis told them to move there for safety. negotiations to halt fighting in -- antony lincoln said it is not clear if hamas wants those starts talks to restart. very clear as recently as today. they would welcome returning to a place of these hostages. the agreements that they made during the first negotiation frosted releases. the question is if they are right to resume this. >> let's go live to tel aviv. what is the latest on these hostage talks? >> before the hostage talks, can we talk about another church

, as you mentioned, southern gaza, dangerous now. 80% of the buildings there are already flattened. hamas, is reluctant to come to the negotiating table. it speaks volumes from the israeli perspective as to why all of these people are suffering. hundreds of people were slaughtered in israel. that is what started this war. israelis say that is often lost in the horrific news. the death toll in gaza has now surpassed 20,000 people. it is a terrible situation all around. israel is ready to talk about a positive fighting. they are not talking about what hamas wants. exchange for the remaining 100+ hostages and an end to the war altogether. that is not on the table because their job is not done yet. their job is to eliminate

hamas. they have not accomplish that objective yet. israel is offering according to cnn forces is a week long pause in the fighting in exchange for 40 israeli hostages and a swap on the palestinian side with people from gaza that are being held currently in israel. hamas is asking not for women or teenagers or young people, israel is asking for women and for the elderly and for people that urgent care. hamas wants heavy hitters. people who might be facing criminal charges here in israel in exchange for innocent civilians that were kidnapped. the suffering in gaza, it is absolutely dire, they need a pause in the fire. the big question now, when could this possibly happen? given the reluctance on the hamas side, it could be some time before another hostage exchange. it took more than a month to

put together. >> even a week long pause, that does not by hamas much, to a similar length pause? >> a week long pause allows them to regroup and they are being hit hard on the military side. they have a network of hundreds of channels that have not been uncovered. they found the biggest hamas tunnel yet. the leader of hamas was able to travel to egypt to talk about this hostage deal. they are very much in control in gaza. until that changes, this war will need to continue after the humanitarian pause of one week, however long it ends up being. >> life from tel aviv. thank you. thousands of migrants lined up at the u.s. border.

our taxes congressmen, what he thinks the administration should do.

days after the governor of texas signed a controversial new law, u.s. officials tell cnn that smugglers and travel agencies are behind the record- breaking surge of migrants. these agencies work with organized transportation networks that advertise travel to the southern border and connect those migrants to smugglers. border officials have been processing more than 10,000 migrants that crossed into the

united states. these groups across the texas state line. the biden administration had to send those resources elsewhere. immigration is a key issue in the election. donald trump doubles down on his rhetoric. >> they are ruining our country. it's true. they are destroying the blood of our country. they are destroying our country. they said that hitler said that, in a much different way. >> joining us is the texas democratic congressman. he also cosigned a letter urging the doj to challenge the new taxes law. thank you for being with us. i want to get your response to

those comments from former president donald trump. the former president front runner said that immigrants came to the blood of the united states. >> those are racist and hateful comments coming from the former president of the united states. that is something that we can expect from donald. his method of operating with these hateful ideas that he has. no one has been more critical on the border than i have. we need to come up with a plan. the senate and the white house are proposing some ideas that i am in favor of. more needs to be done to control the southern border. >> before we get to the deal in the senate. some of it is very

controversial. giving law enforcement jurisdiction to arrest those that they suspect might be undocumented. something you have expressed concern with. what do you say to folks that argue that anyone who is in texas legally has nothing to worry about. >> it will be a very controversial policy if implemented. it will create racism. they will stop hispanics randomly asking for their documents. it is a horrific blow. unconstitutional. article one dictates that united states congress has the power to create immigration policies. what the government is doing is grandstanding to the rest of the country and continuing the rhetoric you see from donald trump. that is unfortunate that these awful bills passed in the texas legislature. they are confident that they will. that is awful.

the times that we are living in texas across the country. that should be done. he should participate in ways that he can. that's not what he's doing. >> you have heard from constituents that are frustrated that the federal government has not moved on immigration in 30 years. you might call this law disgusting. those voters might say that at least he is trying to do something where the federal government is not. what is your response? >> nothing that the governor has ever done has been effective in curbing migration on the border. his project on the border, we had a three-year-old little girl die in the border. what he has done, not curbed to

the thousands of people that are coming. we need immigration policy in washington that will do that. we need ideas of processing migrants further away from the border. we need to raise the critical fear level at the border. a lot of these policies needed to be implemented that can make a real difference on the southern border. grandstanding with laws that the governor of texas is doing is not solving problems at all. you have seen it, he has done a lot, have they been affected, no. >> the you mentioned that you are in support of expediting certain deportations and limiting asylum claims. there are some folks in your party that believe that will backfire on president biden especially if he does not get concessions on things like protection for dreamers and the

pathway to citizenship for those who have been in the united states for a long time. would it be a failure or a liability? >> let me tell you. i do not agree with a lot of policies. a lot of that is on my side of the aisle. we need to crackdown on the southern border. democrats need to do it. there are a lot of places where we can create good policy that is effective and humane. we will not rip children out of their mother's arms. we need to have border on the border. i've been proposing an idea called the safe zone act. creating zones in panama and columbia for them to process at that juncture. if we will turn them down. they can go to an airport in

their country and fly to their final destination. that will take the pressure off the southern border. i will take the cartels out of the equation. and creating a legal pathway much more than we have now for people to come to this country. we need to realize that 70% of asylum-seekers that come to the southern border never qualify for asylum. we need to recognize the fact that we have a huge labor shortage in this country. they need jobs and we need people. we need to find a legal pathway to do and it is not on the southern border. thank you so much for the time, happppy holidaysys, memerry chriristmas. stay with h cnn centraral, we w be rigight back.

goli, taste your goals. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

mother of a 10-year-old boy who was arrested for urinating in public is refusing to sign persons agreement. this is an incident that happened back in august in mississippi. here, you see little eastern, who sitting in the back of a patrol car after he was arrested and an officer involved following department policy and training but this case still proceeded and last week a judge ordered the child to three months

probation and a punishment of writing a book report. his mother, planned to sign the agreement which would prevent her son from having a record of the offense but is now requesting that the charges be dismissed. she is with us now. along with her attorney. >> i certainly have some legal questions for you but i do first want to ask latonya about what she and, have been through. tell us what it was like as your son was arrested, a 10- year-old? >> it was like, it was so heartbreaking i really couldn't believe that they were arresting my child for something that all kids do. i mean, i really don't have the words to say. it's just been so heartbreaking for me. things have been so difficult for us, within the last few months, and it's just hard.

it's hard. >> let's talk about this, you were inside of a building, and he was outside, right? and he had seen a sign that there were no public restrooms and he needed to go. can you tell us then what happened and how this arrest proceeded and you came out and saw what was happening? >> okay, i went to -- as i was in there talking to mr. arbery, an officer came in with plain clothes and he stated that your child was urinating behind your car. so i walked outside with him, me and mr. we walk outside and as we walked outside, he asked my son to get out of the car. so i was like, what issued do that quantavius and he said i had to use the bathroom. in the sign said there's no

public restrooms and i had to use it real bad and i said you should have came in and told me. so i was like, don't do it again. make sure it don't happen again. and the officer was like you handled it like a mom, just make sure he doesn't do it again and get back in the car so my baby got back into the car -- and shortly, and i just want to tell people, after that, it seemed like it was wrapping up and yet then, he was taken away in the police car . and carlos, tell us now about this decision, and how you are advising your client against signing this agreement and why you think that so important? >> yesterday my client and her son went to meet with a probation officer and when they got there she had the probation officer call and tell me the

terms of the agreement and they were treating him like a regular adult criminal. periodic drug tests, a curfew at 8:00 p.m. just very difficult things, that should not be applicable to a 10-year-old, so we decided we did not want this young man to get involved with the criminal justice system. he is not a criminal and should be not treated as one so we decided we would not sign the agreement. she agreed and they left and we don't want to do the book report and we are going to try to have a trial to get a full dismissal. it is asinine what they are putting this point to pay >> do you think this would have happened if your son were white? >> no, i don't think it would have happened at all. if my son was white, i don't think the officer would have even stopped. i think he would have just kept on going. this would have never in any time happened to a white child. >> i know a lot of people are

interested in this, and we will keep watching quantavius's case. thank you. >> thank you. we will be right back.