donald trump is vowing to fight the seismic ruling by colorado's supreme court that would remove him from the gop primary ballot there deeming him and eligible to run for president. trump posting on troop social after the ruling, a sad day in america. the colorado supreme court said if trump appeals to the us supreme court by jan fourth, which his teams says that they well, the decision to kick him off the ballot will be paused until the nation's highest court decides if it will take up the case. remember january fourth is one day before state law requires the colorado secretary of state to certify the list of candidates for the march 5th presidential primary there. so if the justices take this up, they have a complex argument to review. the colorado supreme court found here, 4-3, that trump

engaged in an insurrection and that he incited violence on january 6th 2021, when he was still in office. they actually affirmed a lower court's ruling that trump's january 6th speech was not protected by the first amendment, that's an argument that trump has unsuccessfully made in both state and federal proceedings to defend what he's done on the ellipse just before the insurrection. >> we fight. we fight like , and if you don't fight, you won't have a country anymore. we are going to the capitol and we are going to try and give, the democrats are hopeless, there never voting for anything. not even one vote. but we are going to try and give our republicans the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any other help, we are going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. so let's walk down pennsylvania

avenue. >> colorado supreme court cites section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution which states, that is breaking insurrection us can't serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors or hold any office of civil or military under the united states or under any state. important to note, it doesn't mention the presidency. and it is that vagueness that prompted a colorado trial judge to keep trump on the ballot back in november but colorado supreme court disagreed with that part of the decision. the majority opinion here stating, quote, it seems most likely that the president is not specifically included because it is so evidently in office, added that the conclusion of the presidency is something other than an office in the under the united states is fundamentally at odds with

the idea that all government officials including the president, serve we the people and yet the dissenting opinion here, offered legal toehold for trump when he inevitably appeals this ruling to the us supreme court as his team has made it clear they will. one dissenting supreme court justice concluding that a candidate should not be disqualified under the 14th amendment if they haven't been convicted of insurrection which of course is a federal crime. there's another justice here, carlos moore, also raising due process concerns and it's the trump campaign highlighting this comment from him in their talking points. quote, i've been involved in the justice system for 33 years now and what took place here doesn't resemble anything i've seen in a courtroom but, that's also something that the majority opinion also pretty much acknowledged here stating that the case forced them to quote, travel and uncharted territory

saying we are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. we are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction. of course, that is colorado, and ultimately, this is going to be up to the supreme court here in washington and probably sooner than later. >> let's dig into that supreme court angle now with jessica schneider. jessica, obviously, a collision course with the highest court in the land, what happens to get there, what happens next? >> the trump team will have to appeal and they immediately after this ruling, they said that they would be appealing here, and the colorado supreme court, they anticipated this in their ruling last night. they put that jan fourth deadline for the trump team to appeal this, they said their decision to take trump off the ballot will be paused until at least january 4th, and if the trump team appeals it, his name will be on the ballot for the primary and the real question will come as to whether his name is on the general election

ballot. so we will have to see if the supreme court actually takes up this case. if they do, how quickly they act because there are major constitutional questions here. they have to decide if in fact, trump was engaged in insurrection as the colorado supreme court said he was, if he was engaged in insurrection, whether he would be precluded from the ballot, whether an officer of the united states also means the presidency which the colorado supreme court said it does and then there's questions about the due process of this case. was trump afforded due process? is this a thing that should even be decided by the court? there are major issues that the supreme court would have to decide if they were to take up this case. presumably they would decide to take it up quickly and if they do take it up, which is likely, they will have to decide this

case pretty quickly. we are less than a year away from the general election. >> talk to us more about the timeline. colorado certifies its primary ballots on january 5th. >> it is, so the trump team has until january 4th according to the colorado supreme court to decide whether they will appeal to the us supreme court. trump's team has said that they will be appealing likely quickly here, and if they do appeal, that will keep everything on pause so based on that timeline, it looks like trump will be on the primary ballot in colorado. the question will be whether he is on the general election ballot, because if they file by january 4th, the secretary of state has to make this primary ballot up by the next day and by this decision from the colorado supreme court, she will have to put trump on the primary ballot. if it goes to the supreme court, they take it up, they

will have to decide whether trump gets on the general election ballot in the state of colorado. >> a complicated and fascinating case. the colorado primary is on march 5th. >> this isn't the only case that the supreme court is looking into to determine trump's eligibility. the will file a brief by 4:00 today, on this immunity issue. this goes to the jack smith special counsel case in the d.c. federal court about whether trump is immune from criminal prosecution as trump and his team say they are. jack smith, the special counsel asking the supreme court to take up that question quickly as well because they want to get that march fourth trial date, they want to keep that on track. it looks like it may not be on track because of all these appeals right now pay >> fewer than two hours away from that filing. so president biden is reacting for the first time to this unprecedented ruling in colorado. he said it's up to the courts to make this decision but when he was asked if trump was an insurrectionist, he said there's no doubt, listen. >> is trump an insurrectionist sir? >> i think it's self-evident. you sought it all.

he certainly supported in insurrection. no question about it. man, zero. he seems to be doubling down on it. >> you also hear people, republicans who are not fans of donald trump like chris christie saying, actually, what is the court making that decision so there's a lot of things to disagree and agree about. trump's campaign quickly reacting to this, asking for money. a fundraising the field, trump saying that he would quote, not left the left wing judges still devotes of a majority of americans. behind the fighting imagery, the campaign, though, we have learned, was surprised and knocked off balance. elena, what are you learning? >> according to my conversations with trump's campaign advisors, they were

very much surprised by this. they had anticipated that the higher courts would ultimately role in trump's favor. of course that's not what happened with this colorado supreme court decision. but while they were not expecting this, they were again, stunned by this decision. they were prepared for any sort of scenario that might have not gone his way. and that's why you saw the trump campaign almost immediately after this decision was announced, issue a statement, attacking the ruling, trump's campaign advisor wrote, quote, it's a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the united states supreme court. and i think that the strategy here by the trump team, is not totally surprising. we've seen them use this playbook before. they will try and quickly

appeal this to the supreme court. they are attacking the decision as being political and election interference and they are going after the judges as being biased against the former president and as you mentioned, also trying to fund raise and raise money off this. and they are confident that they will be able to be successful in the strategy given how successful they've been with pushing back on the same strategy with his indictments earlier this year. let's dig deeper with the president of the group that filed this lawsuit, noel bookbinder joins us, he's from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. noah, this is a significant victory for you albeit a temporary one. i'm wondering what aspect of your case will be the biggest point of contention for the high court like what argument do you think they will scrutinize most? >> well, i think we have to start with the fact that this was a historic ruling by the colorado supreme court that, you know, after a hearing in which there were a large number of witnesses, there were thousands of pages of documents reviewed, the district court found that donald trump incited in insurrection which is

incredibly significant to colorado supreme court, and affirmed that ruling, and further found that donald trump was disqualified, so i don't want to gloss over how significant that is in defending the democracy. i do you know, certainly think that you haven't had these cases before because we've never before had a presidential candidate or a former president who engaged in this type of conduct. and, you know, i do expect the issue that the trial court judge raised about whether the president is an officer of the united states. we think the answer is clear that a president is, as the colorado supreme court found but i suspect that is something that if this case is appealed, we will get further scrutiny, and the fact that there is this

general question of, is this something that is appropriate for courts to consider. we think the answer is very clear, that the constitution sets up the rules for elections, and it is the courts that tell us what the constitution means and how you implement it. >> so mellow, you mentioned the question of whether the president falls under section 3 of the 14th amendment, whether he is an officer if you will. you argue that common sense makes it so the authors of the amendment would include the president in that umbrella of the insurrectionist ban, but, if you are originalist, if you are clarence thomas, per se, they argue that they don't interpret the constitution, they take it for actual word. to what would be an argument you think might be persuasive to someone from that viewpoint? >> i think that actually, the language and the history of the constitution is clear. the presidency is referred to

as the office of the united states, in multiple places in the constitution. there are a number of those where it wouldn't make logical sense, it wouldn't fit with the way our government works or the way the constitution is written, for it not to include the presidency. so, we think the language actually very much works for the argument that we are making. but history is very clear. the legislators who were involved in the drafting of this amendment pushed for this amendment, talked about how it needed to apply to all officials who were involved in the insurrection including the most powerful ones. there's a colloquy between two senators, they thought it was evident that the president was included. looking at the language, looking at the history, that actually very much works in favor of the argument that the

president is covered but looking at the intent of the drafters, it just doesn't make sense that they would try to detect the republic from those who attacked it except for the position that was in the most able to do damage, if it was occupied by somebody who previously engaged in insurrection. >> quickly, what is your response to those that say that you are doing this because you are desperate to have donald trump lose the 2024 election, and this is the only way to do it? >> look, we are not in it to help a candidate or hurt a candidate. we are in it to ensure that the rules set out in the constitution, which are there to protect the democracy from those who have attacked it in the past, those who put our democratic system at risk, to make sure that those people are not put back in a position to

do that same kind of thing again. this is not whether a democrat or republican wins. the rules are in there for a reason and they are clear and they need to be enforced. >> thanks so much for sharing your perspective. >> thanks so much. the backdrop of all this is a race for the nomination, and donald from's republican rivals are rushing to defend him after this unprecedented ruling. ahead, we will show you what the candidates are saying and i will before the iowa caucuses. we will take you live to iceland. the latest on that volcanic eruption. why experts are concerned about toxic gases potentially reaching the countntry's capiti.

we have breaking news into cnn, the u.s. has reached an agreement to secure the release of six wrongfully detained americans and for other americans held in venezuela and in exchange biden made the decision to grant clemency to

an alleged financier. >> this deal marks another significant thawing of relations between the united states and as well after months of high level negotiations. alex, do we know the identities of those set to be released? >> we do, for some of them, this is a hugely significant deal, around 30 people being released by venezuela, the vast majority of whom are being released by venezuela including venezuelans, and americans. among the 10 americans were being released are six who are deemed by the state department to be wrongfully held. and they include ivan hernandez, terrel kenmore and savoy right, but to others we believe are aaron barry and luke denman. we've been in touch with a number of the families, the sisters of gerald kenmore had told cnn that her brother felt like he was forgotten, that

while in detention in venezuela, his depression was deepening, he attempted to commit suicide at least twice. those six and for others, that we know of whose names have not been released are on their way home, according to the white house. there's also a very interesting characters whose nickname is fat leonard, leonard francis, who's also been released by the venezuelans, this is a convict that the u.s. is keen to get their hands on. he is someone who the u.s. says orchestrated one of the biggest corruption schemes in u.s. navy all history. he was set to be sentenced but managed to escape the united states, go to mexico, cuba and then caught in venezuela on his way to russia, so that is someone who the u.s. judicial system certainly wants to get back into the u.s. to proceed with his punishment. and then in exchange, the

release that the u.s. is making is a man named alex solve, the administration described this as a difficult decision. he is close to venezuelan president maduro, he is cute accused the united states of laundering millions of dollars and orchestrating what they call a fast corruption network and significantly profiting from food imports and distribution. there's been so much focus about the hostage conversations and now between israel and hamas but the americans who venezuela have been holding have been a significant focus for roger karstens who is in charge of hostage negotiations here, and the release of these 10 american prisoners comes after months and months of intense hardware, primarily, behind the scenes.

>> really significant here. and certainly good news for the families of these wrongfully detained americans. thank you for the latest. let's turn back to what's really the major story of the day, that is that donald trump, vowing to appeal this colorado supreme court decision that takes him off the 2024 primary ballot, assuming it does stand, and he's using the ruling now as a fundraising opportunity in fact, in an email last night his campaign wrote, this is how dictatorships are born. i will not left -- let left- wing judges steal the votes of the majority of americans. >> with less than a month ago before the iowa caucuses, this decision is on the mind of trump's 2024 rivals, some of them criticizing this ruling, listen. >> do we want to have 2024 to be about this trial, that case, that case, having to put hundreds of millions of dollars into legal stuff, or do we want 2024 to be about your issues, about the country's future? >> i think he should be

prevented from being president by the voters of this country. >> we don't need judges making these decisions. so i want to see this in the hands of the voters. we will win this the right way. >> not surprisingly trump's allies are also rallying around him. we are going to listen to what this iowa voter told cnn. >> it's not right that they should take him off the ballot. it's what the people want. isn't it odd that everything he does they attack him for, they filed court proceedings against him but the democrats can get away with everything. >> let's get some political perspective on all of this. maria, i'll start with you. as we are reading that statement from the trump team talking about this is how dictatorships are formed. you were laughing. >> it's so ironic, somebody who has said in his own words, that

if he were elected again, he would be a dictator on day one. so of course, i would laugh when he's talking about this and that's how dictatorships are born, no, mr. trump, you are how dictatorships are born, you are the one who's a dangerous -- danger to this country and you're the one who tried to already act like a dictator in the four years you were in the office and then didn't want to leave while you were beaten by your rival and that's exactly what will happen again and that's why we have to be vigilant and make sure that whether it's the courts, whether through an election that donald trump gets nowhere near the oval office. >> scott, what do you think about this ruling and trump's reaction to it? >> i mean, if we were all blessed with enemies as dumb as donald trump's, we be extremely successful. the people that are the biggest angry trump haters are going to rue the idea that this was ever something that they should have received. it galvanizes republicans around donald trump and sucks

all the wind out of anybody else's sales in the republican primary. and it seems to a lot of democrats, even, that it's un- american to have court telling the american people you can and can't have access to in terms of voting, even chris christie, who's been the biggest trump critic in this entire primary saying, hold on, so that ought to tell you something. this has been like jet fuel for his campaign. they will raise a ton of money and i suspect it will strengthen him. >> so scott, you don't see a way for trump's republican rivals to somehow use this to his advantage, there's no pathway for that? >> listen to what they are saying today. every single person he's

running against today is out defending him from this ruling and guess what else will happen? there's a victory lap on this today and there will be a second one when the supreme court punch this into the sun and incinerated. he will have another moment of victory on this deal. so if you have a strongest risk wish to somehow see donald trump go away and american political life, this was the worst possible thing that could have happened. >> there's a couple of here -- the colorado supreme court is following their interpretation of the 14th amendment, just because donald trump is engaged in a campaign where he is using everything to his advantage, and i agree that this will elevate his base but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable. he did involve himself and was focused on an insurrection in this country, to the point of chris christie saying that a supreme court should not be the one to decide an election. i agree but guess what, that has already happened. look what happened to al gore

and george w. bush, tell him that a supreme court should not decide an election. he would agree but this really is not going to have any practical effect on the actual process of the election. even if donald trump does not appear on the ballot in the general election, i don't think the process is such that he won't do it in the primary because it'll be too late but even if he doesn't appear in the general election, he was never going to win colorado anyway. colorado is a blue state and unless every other state engages with this which a couple of them may, it's going to be donald trump versus joe biden in the end, and this will also help by the way, to mobilize the democratic race, who does see donald trump as, and the election of donald trump as an extinction level

threat for the future of our country. >> thank you both. we have to leave the conversation there. we have breaking news just into cnn. former president trump actually does not want the supreme court to decide right now whether he has immunity from federal prosecution for the alleged crimes that he committed while in office. joan, we anticipated that they wanted the supreme court to weigh in on this, not the filing that we anticipated? >> know this is right, when i saw you an hour ago, you thought we would be getting it soon but we knew, for this stage, donald trump's lawyers do not want the supreme court to wait in at this point. they want it to go slower and have a federal appeals court here at first. this response that we just got a few seconds ago, is response to special counsel jack smith's request last week to supreme court to intervene immediately. special counsel smith has said the question of whether a former president is immune from

prosecution, criminal prosecution for election subversion should be decided right now. it should not wait to be decided by a lower court and then the supreme court. he clearly wants an answer to this. he was looking in fact at march 4th, so now we have is donald trump's response to that saying no, supreme court, do not intervene at this point. wait until you escort of appeals for the district of columbia circuit actually hears first, and then in due course, let it go up to the supreme court for the immunity question to be decided. what we are probably going to see, this really tease this case up as opposed to the colorado one. this tease up the immunity question which is a very important one about whether donald trump will go to trial this spring, facing all the charges that the special

counsel has brought including the events from january 6th. what's going to happen next is that the supreme court will now tell us with any you know, maybe a couple of days, maybe another week i would hope it would be in a couple of days so that we have some clarity here whether it will hear this case out of order, but because of its importance, if they will hear this case, set a schedule and be able to resolve the important, unprecedented constitutional questions of immunity from criminal prosecution for the former president of the united states. >> how does the court way this, if the trump team doesn't want this, how much bearing does this have on what they decide to do? >> they will have to figure out, is jack smith's, the federal government essentially, is his request compelling enough for the court to take

this case out of sequence? and frankly, the supreme court has taken cases out of sequence before, and this is so important. as the special counsel wrote in his initial filing, this is whether a former president is going to be held accountable for his actions arising from the 2020 election subversion. so it's a really important case, and the judges will have to decide it no matter what. they will have to answer that question at some point. so the question is, do they do it now and habit at a point where they can resolve it, and have enough time for a trial to occur before we get too deep into the 2024 election cycle, or, will they insist that it go first to the appellate court which is where it is now, first to the appellate court and then up to the supreme court, and if

it goes right to the supreme court now, then we are going to have, you know, it'll be resolved in the next couple of weeks. if it goes first to the appellate court, we won't have an answer to this perhaps, for months. >> joan, thank you so much, we will track this more obviously throughout the day. and we will be right back.

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.

goli, taste your goals. we are tracking more breaking news, former president trump does not want the supreme court to decide right now whether he has immunity from federal prosecution for the alleged crimes that he committed while in office.

maria cardona is back with us right now. what do you think about this, not what we were expecting to hear from his team. >> i think this is another tactic of his to continue to delay, delay, delay. the first one is, what we were talking about before, which is anything with talk of the supreme court or the courts, jumping in and either keeping him from ballots which is what the colorado supreme court says did, or even talk of whether it's democrats and democrats really have nothing to do with this but other third-party groups who are trying to make the case that i made earlier as well, that donald trump is not above the law. even if he was a former president of the united states and president of the united states, he is not above the law, this is not political. but we have values in this country, and the president is not above it. so anything with that kind of talk, for trump supporters, and we just saw it in the clip that you put in earlier. they think of it as

persecution. they think of it as everyone trying to go after donald trump and it really plays into the role that he has down pat, which is, that of a victim. the victimization of donald trump, i think is one of the biggest tactics that he will use in the 2024 election. >> what risks are there for the white house to go after donald trump on this, to sort of way in on the matter. we've seen president biden essentially saying, this is up to the courts but on other issues, he had been more vocal, and he did say that he believes that donald trump, without question, aided in insurrection. >> i think comments like that i think are fine. they help with his base, because frankly, his base believes that joe biden should be a little more aggressive in making the contrast of donald trump being a danger to our democracy, so joe biden, commenting on how he believes which the majority of the country believes that he was aiding and abetting an

insurrection, that's playing out in the courts. i don't think you will see him comment on either what the supreme court should do or anything else that is in front of the court right now. but i think this is another opportunity for joe biden, generally speaking, to make the contrast between what a danger to democracy donald trump is and will be if he gets a second chance to get into the oval office, through donald trump's own words, which i just mentioned as well, when he said he would be a dictator on day one and he is also laid out everything he would do if he gets another chance in the oval office. i think those kind of contrast, for president biden and vice president harris, to continue to make i think that'll help in ensuring that his base knows that he is out there fighting and that is going to be a big, big reason for the contrast

going into 2024. >> we will be back in just a moment, trump is asking the supreme court to stay out of this immunity dispute, at least for now.

a new report shows that americans are feeling better about the economy. consumer confidence at its highest level since july and today president biden is on the road to tout his policies. >> privately, cnn is learning as the white house struggles to change public opinion on the economic record, the president expressing some frustration to his advisors.

mj, you have president biden speaking here at an event in milwaukee a short time ago. tell us how he is addressing this, and how you hear from your sources, the white house is concerned about this. >> you were just talking about the newest consumer confidence index and that's an interesting one. because that is one that the white house watches closely and puts quite a lot of stock into. it's one of those data points that makes them feel hopeful that the economy will continue to improve but the reality is that the public outlook on the economy is not great and we see the president taking a hit for it. if you look at the most recent cnn poll, the majority of americans, saying that they disapprove of the president's handling of the economy and it's why we are seeing the president travel to a place like milwaukee and try to sell his economic record overall basically saying, here are all the ways in which the economy is better off under democrats, take a listen. >> all this groundbreaking work is producing groundbreaking

results. record job creation, we have among the lowest inflation rates of any major economy on this earth. let's declare, republicans are against so many critical actions that help working and middle-class people, especially black americans. >> needless to say, it's really important for the white house and the biden campaign to try and change the narrative on the economy and one thing we reported today is that something that the president is privately frustrated about and has shown the frustration to his senior advisors is that it's difficult to have physical things that he can point to right now when he's trying to tell some of these big, signature legislative accomplishments from the first term, it obviously goes to show how important he thinks it is to physically showcase what is a part of his economic record. coming up the skyrocketing

demand for a popular new weight loss drug has made it harder to find and harder to afford. how that has led to a resurgent of older we will be back in just a few minutes.

i am mj lee at the white house in this is cnn. as weight loss drugs grow in popularity, the demand is making it hard for many patients to actually get these drugs. >> a new cnn exclusive, we are learning a problem is leaning some people to go on older weight loss drugs. meg terrel joins us, how hard is it to find those weight loss drugs? >> these new medicines can be almost impossible for some patients to access even if they

qualify based on their bmi. that's in part from drugs in popularity legos and pick, and there high list prices, insurance companies will not cover them if you look at the list prices per month, that is before insurance, pushing $1000 or even more than that for all these medicines. we talked to one patient, she had prescriptions for each drug and experienced either insurance hurdles or shortages, sometimes both with these matters and. i talked with the doctor that's a sunny five percent of her requests for the newest medicine are currently getting rejected. there is a lot of problems and frustration getting these new medicines. the mac what are the older drugs people are turning to? >> there have been drugs for decades doctors use before this new class of medicines came along, and are using more now. drugs -- we have exclusive data

showing that prescription rates for those medicines are up about 30% over the past six years. while that's not anywhere near the jump we have seen for things like ozempic, more patients are seeking out weight loss treatment and because of those barriers or from preference. we are starting to see prescription rates increase too. >> how do they compare to current drugs? >> typically, they have not shown great weight loss as the newer medicines, they can be very helpful. kristi told us her story, she was able to be on ozempic for three months. she lost 10 pounds and was able to get that for a year, she lost an additional 10 pounds and lost access, she said she gained back about 80% of the weight she lost, she was alarmed by that weight gain. she and her doctor started and

that halted weight gain, there is another drug available in that cas. it will be a real roller coaster and it is incredibly frustrating. >> these drugs are incredibly popular, meg terrel, thank you. lawyers for former president trump are vowing to get the -- they keep that on the balance, what does this mean for other states who have other cases, we will talk to officials in another key next.

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

cnn breaking news. >> we have been following breaking news, some major political and legal developments involving former president donald trump and the supreme court. just a short time ago, trump's lawyers asked the nation's highest court to stay away from now for the dispute whether trump has immunity from federal election subversion charges. this is a step b