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 by equally

unprecedented case to the other one that's likely going to go in front of those nine justices. >> trump has been barred from the 2024 primary ballot after the state supreme court found he violated the 13th amendment's insurrectionist band. trump's lawyers taking of course the opposite approach straight to the court on this. we have cnn tracking both of these stories. walk us through the immunity issue, what we are expecting compared to what happened. >> donald trump headed to trial in march in the court in washington. the supreme court has to resolve, they are going to have to figure out whether donald trump is immune from going to trial beakers -- because he was trialed in the senate and acquitted there. before they can do that trial, someone will have to figure it out and it will be the supreme court. the justice department wants to

skip the middle court and go to the supreme court straightaway. the supreme court is considering that, we have this new brief in from donald trump's team before the supreme court to look at and decide whether it is time for them to take the case or it stays at this middle court planning to have arguments in about three weeks and resolve and get their say whether donald trump has immunity over prosecution. what trump's lawyers are writing today is the special counsel urges the supreme court to bypass ordinary procedures. prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, that is the d.c. circuit, rush to decide issues with reckless abandon. they were declined an invitation, jack smith special counsel office, their argument is that the supreme court should decide this issue quickly if residential immunity

has public interest. that's a partisan argument you're making because he's on the campaign trail, everybody slow down. he does not have to go to trial in march. >> attorneys have been pushing for delays at every juncture of his legal battles, let's focus on colorado now. a 4-3 majority deciding donald trump should not be on the biden -- official ballot. >> there was a surprising decision because of a number of these challenges have been made around the country, in new hampshire, michigan, minnesota. all the other courts have found this does not hold water, the 14th amendment cannot be used in this way to disallow a presidential candidate especially in this case, donald trump who is the president. what this court has ruled is the opposite, the first quarter has found that the former president was essentially an

insurrectionist and the 14th amendment does hold he should be barred from being on the ballot. the collision course is the calendar because january 5th, the colorado -- secretary of state has to certify their ballot for the primary care colorado supreme court has already put a pause on their decisions, if donald trump appealed before then before january 4th. he's going to remain on the ballot, at least pending litigation. it will take some time for the supreme court to get this, the issue is now you have 20 cases, this one which if this is successful, you have to imagine other people will bring similar challenges to remove trump from other ballots in states he's much more likely to be competitive in. certainly, you know we also have this trial period there's twin cases that are now on

their way to the supreme court. we have not been in a place like this since bush versus gore when the support -- supreme court was weighing in on the future of the presidency. >> it is an incredible time we are missing, if you could stand by for us. i want to discuss former federal prosecutor, jennifer rodgers and john dean. you first, just your reaction to this immunity argument basically stay out of this dispute that trump team is saying, how you think that will impact what the supreme court does. >> it is no surprise this is what they have been trying to do all the long is delay it ideally until after the election, it's no surprise at all. i don't know what the supreme court will do to be honest, it is strange to skip the appellate process, we are in extraordinary times, it is

ironic that after all the times trump asked for emergency consideration while they were in charge, they now say hey, what is the rush, hold back, no need to go to the quick route. we will see what they do, given the stakes, they will decide it quickly without the d.c. circuit having weight first, it is anybody's guess. >> is there any benefit to the trump team other than just to delay the proceedings, to have this go through a appellate court. >> >> there is a possibility they get a negative ruling in the d.c. circuit. is a risk, if you will. the record is actually pretty complete in the lower courts, so i do not think there is an advantage for them, i think as jennifer said, this is delayed and has been standard operating procedure, notwithstanding that every day the lawsuit exists,

it hurts them, they are saying well, we still want to delay. it is a very inconsistent, hypocritical position. >> do you think there's any interaction between the colorado issue and this immunity issues, how the trump team could see these things as twin issues before the court since they could be things that they are taking up in close proximity? >> i think it is just a unique circumstance, two things have completed and the possibility of both being before the supreme court, i would be less surprised if they said hey, let's pull back from appealing the colorado decision and let's see how that plays out in other states. rather than try to get that in front of the court too, i do not see a connection, i think there will be other cases, other states will go down the 14th amendment route, the ones

that have gone down have been really largely procedurally dismissed, not subsidence the -- substantively dismissed. they will have an apparatus or machinery to bring this to court and to make a judgment out of the proviso due process. this is a unique proceeding as we will keep saying what trump's. >> >> it certainly is, jennifer rodgers and john dean, if you can stay with us. plaintiffs might have succeeded at removing trump from the colorado ballot but other major 14th amendment lawsuits have been rejected by judges in minnesota, new hampshire, arizona, michigan. appeals in those states underway, let's talk about legal challenges and also the fallout from colorado with michigan's secretary of state jocelyn benson, thank you so much. i know you have declined to take a position on the lawsuit playing out which is now being appealed to the michigan

supreme court, what was your reaction to this ruling in colorado? >> first, thanks for having me, this is a critical issue and one we need clarity on, a state court ruling and a separate state does not apply to michigan. we are all as we have been as this emerged as an issue looking to the u.s. supreme court to help clarify this issue and give us some finality on the substantive issues as soon as possible, this is important not just for our state for the republican party which needs to know that it has a qualified nominee, it's important for election officials so we know who we can put on the ballot. also more important than anything, it is critical for voters to be to going into this primary season clarity so they can make informed decisions as they cast their ballot. >> what do you think the supreme court should do in terms of timing as you are looking for clarity ahead of the primaries? >> we would like to see them

expedite a decision as soon as possible, obviously taking the gravity of this moment seriously, weighing all of the considerations, but also recognizing the urgency for all of us in the states, in every state as we enter the primary season and we are getting together, i know it is the holidays but let's get a decision to the states especially as you now will have diverging opinions, we need that clarity and we needed to come as soon as possible. >> there is a similar case in michigan, it went the other way, the judge did not allow a trial, an appeal is pending before the supreme court, do you think that colorado ruling could affect their decision? >> i don't think so, i think our case has proceeded in michigan in a different way along a different path. i think i trust the justices of

our supreme court to look at this from a michigan standpoint and a constitutional standpoint , and do what's right under the law and constitution, certainly other considerations in court precedents and other states can be persuasive, they will not be definitive and i expect our court in michigan to make an independent analysis when it reaches the supreme court hopefully rather soon. >> there is legal and political, michigan is a battleground state, colorado leans blue. do you worry about political fallout in your state if the ruling stands? >> i have said all along, the law is the law and the constitution is what it is, we have a responsibility to follow it and provide clarity to citizens, that clarity is what i'm most concerned about especially with the uncertainty of this moment waiting for other courts to wait in including the u.s. supreme court, the fallout is really going to be routed to the uncertainty and that's why my hope is that the supreme court will not punt at this issue as they potentially could but make

a substantive, final decision on this entire issue under the 14th amendment so that going into the primary season, all states and political parties have clarity on who and who is not qualified to serve. >> i appreciate that opinion, what is clarity to you, that is not going to be clarity to everyone, there are people who would look at this in a matter which way it goes, there are folks on both sides, they are not going to see clarity, they will see an incorrect decision, something that politicizes the system in that is not concerning to you? even if you feel the court is doing the right thing? >> it is so concerning to me because we are in a moment where all of us at least in michigan and many battleground states are obsessively focused on restoring faith in our election process, i am deeply concerned about the way in which this issue could harm or impact citizens faith in the integrity

of our elections, we will work in a transparent way to be clear about the law, the courts will tell us that then we will work to ensure processes remain transparent and open and we communicate to citizens, listen and respond as well but make sure we are doing everything we can on the process side to at least ensure they can have face in the mechanics of our election and the responsibility of election officials under the lot of all the constitution whenever the decision maybe. >> secretary benson, thank you so much for being with us, we appreciate your time this afternoon. >> thanks for having me. >> we want to bring jennifer rogers and john dean back to the conversation, jennifer, how do you see this colorado issue playing out over the next few weeks, as it likely heads to the supreme court? >> i think as the courts certainly will take it, particularly with other states having the same issue pending. they will not want there to be difficult -- different rulings, i think the court will take it and then what they do with it

is the big? . there is no precedent, this has never happened before. it is a matter of interpreting the united states constitution. ultimately, the u.s. supreme court is the final arbiter it has the final say. the colorado supreme court decision was very solid i think, there was not a lot to criticize. it's just so hard for me to believe the supreme court is going to allow a presidential candidate to be taken off the ballot by one state given that impacts all the other stakes -- states. we will look to see what they do but my bet would be that ultimately, they find a way to overturn. >> i wonder what you think just of the state of things, the politicization of the court. we have seen the court be involved in presidential electoral politics before to quite an effect when you think of al gore and george bush, and their race. these are different

times though. we thought the country was divided back then, it is incredibly divided now in whatever decision is made, you are going to see in any of these cases, you will see the court very maligned by either the left or right depending on the outcome, how are you reflecting on that and the legitimacy of the court at this point in time? >> it is very troubling. it's probably the candidates last night reaching immediate conclusion, the court should handle this. this should be handled by the electorate, if the constitution says he's not qualified, he's not qualified. just as somebody who is not the proper age, 35 years of age, has not lived in the united states for 14 years, is not a natural born. all those things to apply. so does the fact you cannot be engaged in insurrection after

you have taken an oath to support the constitution. it is very unique that the issues, but it is a very real issue and i just don't think we can wash aside the role of the courts in politicizing the courts would really be a disaster. we are divided, yes. the courts have to stand its ground. the michigan case is mentioned in the colorado case where they say we have a procedure, michigan does not. >> jennifer, something that strikes me about this is that at both levels, initially the first judge than the colorado supreme court both weighed in on whether donald trump was a party to the insurrection. do you envision the supreme court justices having to weigh in on that on some level as part of whatever decision they potentially make? >> they won't, because that was a fact-finding endeavor.

the initial court was the one to collect that evidence and make that determination and then the higher court defer to that judgment. they i believe will just be looking at the legal issues, whether the presidency is one of the offices to which that provision applies, whether there was property process below and whether the mechanism used was correct, those sorts of things. they will not be going back to i don't think the issue of whether he actually participated in insurrection and whether it was insurrection to begin with. >> it would be fascinating to get the supreme court justices on the record. >> you're saying, jennifer and correct me if i'm reading this wrongly. they are operating as if that has been adjudicated, that is just an issue that is asserted, that he's a party to insurrection. >> for most issues, the fact- finding is done below and then

the upper courts deal with the issue of the legal issues, they defer to the fact-finding that happens at the trial court level because the trial court is where witnesses testify, where evidence is received and considered, that is the place where facts are determined, then above you look at the facts in the sense of whether a reasonable jury or judge could have reached a decision. for the most part, they are looking at the issue of whether the law was complied with and in this case in particular, it will be whether or not i believe the presidency is one of the offices covered by amendment 14 section 3. >> that is very interesting. jennifer john, thank you to both of you. we do appreciate it. when we come back, israel back at the table returning for talks to pause the fighting with hamas in exchange for more israeli hostages held by hamas, we are following new developments.

now to the latest on israel's war with hamas, video today showing people running, showing people being carried from the site of explosions in rough off -- in southern gaza, caused by israeli airstrikes that killed and wounded several people, as the u.s. security council delays for the first time a vote on a resolution to pause fighting and as it israel returns to negotiations, attempting to halt attacks in exchange for hamas releasing israeli hostages. cnn's will ripley is live in tel aviv, what's the latest on the status of these hostage talks? >> we know that both sides are at least talking which is encouraging and is a pivot for both sides for different

reasons. the hamas political leader traveling to cairo to listen to the offer that is now put on the table by israel but is an offer that israel and the united states believe hamas will not accept given their stance up until as far as we know now has been in order for the remaining 100+ hostages who are still alive to be released, there has to be a permanent cease-fire, a permanent end to the ground operations, the airstrikes, from the israeli perspective, that's not going to happen because they have stated clearly from the beginning ever since the massacre on october 7th when hundreds of hot unarmed israelis, many of them young people were murdered by hamas militants, the israeli said this war is not against the people of gaza, it is against leadership of hamas and until they are eliminated, this conflict needs to continue. the problem and the reason why this u.n. vote keeps getting delayed is the united states while showing support for israel also has to acknowledge the growing outcry around the world at the horrific civilian death

toll behind-the-scenes, cnn sources say the messaging from the united dates to israel has been very clear, this -- civilians need to be kept out of this, you need to find a way to eliminate the hamas leadership without killing so many people yet, from the israeli perspective, they insist hamas is operating from hospitals, maybe even from churches. remember over the weekend, there were accusations of israeli snipers, israel has denied this but snipers charting a church, damaging the church generator, the fuel supply, hospitals at a fraction are operational, some cases have claimed to show evidence that hamas was operating out of these facilities where people were sheltering and seeking medical care albeit very limited medical care at this stage, very dangerous conditions because of lack of food and medicine, a humanitarian pause is needed, hamas is taking a heavy hit

militarily and in some ways, politically some analysts have said it is to their benefit to drag this out because more israel strikes, the more we see these pictures of civilians being injured, the more the death toll picks up and the pressure is on israel twos change strategy which gives hamas more time to regroup, it is a very difficult situation on the ground but one thing is for sure, there does need to be a stop in the fighting in order to get back and we need really and supplies and, the question is how can that be worked out, what is hamas going to want in terms of their own prisoners, they have said in the past if there's some sort of a hostage exchange, they are not interested in getting back teenagers and women, they want people facing very serious charges or who have been convicted of crimes to be returned back from the israeli perspective, that is essentially sending potential militants back into their own freedom to train and potentially try to launch another strike and that is something here in tel aviv they say must never be allowed to happen, very difficult if

not impossible or near impossible situation all around. >> will ripley eli from tel aviv . thank you. let's get some perspective with cnn global affairs analyst kimberly dozier, thank you for being with us, let's talk about the fact that certain experts are skeptical that hamas wants to make a deal in part because they believed keeping hold of hostages is the only leverage that the terror group has at this point, what would be the incentive for them to strike it deal? >> just moving towards negotiating a deal is part of hamas is intended public humiliation of israel's prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. the israeli state at large, just holding it over their heads that they have got hostages and that israel still has to go through this process to try to get them back. is either side serious about a positive this time?

not clear. benjamin netanyahu has to go through it as well because he is facing both internal pressure from the hostage families and israeli public, especially after the killing of those three hostages by israeli troops over the weekend and also internationally, israel could be facing a situation where the u.s. votes together with other u.n. members to call for humanitarian aid and some sort of a pause that of course, that language is still being worked on. the fact that the other u.n. members have not gone ahead and call the for a vote, the white house is seriously considering signing on to it otherwise, there would be no reason to keep negotiating over wording. >> let's get into the contours of the deal at least as far as we have been able to report. the indications are that israel wants 40 hostages released as part of this deal that include

women, the elderly, those in need of urgent care, conversely hamas as we have heard will say is asking for quote more heavy duty prisoners than before. what do you read into that? >> each side wants to keep fighting but is doing what their various allies or telling them to do and walking up to the negotiating line with their maximal demands. will this lead to some sort of resolution xe it depends on how much pressure the israeli forces are putting on hamas on the ground, how much pressure benjamin netanyahu is under for mostly his coalition at home and the israeli public. benjamin netanyahu wants to get elected again and that means showing the israeli public he's really trying to get hostages back but the far right members of his coalition have several times including most recently publicly threatened to pull out

of his coalition if he for instance gives money back to the palestinian authority's owed to them for taxing their people. it is a complicated arrangement but basically, what it shows you is that benjamin netanyahu is walking a fine line . hamas, meanwhile. the more they act they are trying to negotiate, the more they remind everyone that they are in charge. >> kimberly dozier, i always appreciate the analysis. >> thanks. >> still ahead, new concerns about that volcano that has been a refton in iceland -- erupting, less lava is shooting out but people are worried about a new threat to the company's capital. -- countries capital, details next.

wiwill

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

iceland's huge volcanic eruption remaining a dangerous threat to its southwestern peninsula even though it is nonetheless huge. officials say the lava flows intensity is easing, scientist or assessing the risk. it is too soon to let evacuated residents to go home. >> you spend creeks -- christmas under an order. south of volcanic activity, we are on the ground in the town

of grindavik . >> the authorities say that the volcanic activity is subsiding, the danger is not over. we saw that massive wall of magma coming from that fissure and some of the lava being spewed hundreds of feet into the air. also those lava flows coming from that as well. moving laterally into the immediate area. that has calm down. about five vents that were still active and spewing lava hundreds of feet into the air. now they say it is about three events that are still going. the authorities do say there is a lot of activity going on. they say that there could be new vents and fissures opening up around the fault line that is going on with of course a magma tunnel that goes all the way to the atlantic ocean. the authorities are on high alert, they have cornered off

the immediate area. you have the town of grindavik which has been so affected by all of this evacuated a long time ago, the residents have been told they cannot go back until at least christmas which is not at all surprising considering something that looks like the gates of hell opened up. luckily, no one has been injured and the authorities do say the have the situation under control. >> thanks to fred for that, now two other headlines we are watching the sour. both are being used to rescue trapped residents in maine with 100 roads and bridges closed due to storm damage. to restore power to 250,000 customers, the storm has claimed at least two lives that went missing after their car was swept away. authorities are investigating the cause of a deadly helicopter crash. the news helicopter went down in a wooded area killing both

the pilot and photographer in new jersey. they are not yet releasing the names of crew members because family members are being notified. the five new military nominees being blocked have been unanimously approved by the senate, this follows a months long standoff which delayed the confirmation of more than 450 flag and general officers. partisan, bipartisan pressuring the senator. after the pentagon claimed the blockade was causing serious damage to the military. the whole trust in the pentagon abortion travel policy, the senators capitulation came without that. they faced a lot of backlash ultimately from those within

his own party. that was ultimately the impotence that brought this all ahead. >> the state of texas claiming a new law that makes it a crime to enter the state illegally is unconstitutional, we will be speaking with a group that challenges the new law.

just days after the

governor of texas signed a controversial new law that makes it a crime to cross to texas immediate -- illegal. smugglers and pseudo-travel agencies are behind a different record breaking surge in migrants. these agencies work with organized transportation networks that advertise travel to america's southern border then connect migrants to smugglers. border officials have processed more than 10,000 migrants who unlawfully crossed into the u.s. these are new images showing them lined up in eagle pass. crossing the biden administration had to shut down to send resources somewhere. edward thorne is a senior staff attorney of the beyond borders program. his group joined the aclu lawsuit against texas. thanks for being with us, tell us about concerns you have about how this law would affect the latino community in texas as well as immigrants who do have legal claims.

this law by its very terms allows any peace officer throughout the state of texas from the borderlands to thousands of miles into the interior to arrest and detain someone who they suspect being in the country unlawfully. >> take them in front of a texas judge who also has no knowledge of immigration law that can ordered him to drive them to a port of entry and demand they leave the country. it is an unprecedented attempt to grab what is clearly federal power. >> your worry is that it basically does not end run around the federal process and any type of protections there are federally. there was a federal bill all the way to the supreme court, if they do too considering the supreme court is more conservative now than it previously let a key and controversial parts dan.

do you think they okay the texas bill? >> this law is unprecedented in the breast. much more broad, even then the law in arizona. allowing state officials to deport people is something that not even arizona tried to do. what texas is trying to do was much broader than arizona, many of the policies arizona was proposing in that law were also struck down by the supreme court. it's likely you will see texas grab even more clearly federal authorities despite what authorities do 10 years ago. you will see the same result with texas being told clearly, this is the federal government's job. >> the law is slated to take effect on march 5th, that is really not that far away.

can you realistically get a ruling before then? >> absolutely, we are going to do everything in our power to try to enjoy this law from going into effect by that point. we have to try everything, allowing the slot to go into effect puts a target on the back of immigrant communities throughout the state of texas. >> playing a little bit of devils advocate, when you do read the dissenting opinion in the arizona's case. there was a lot of i guess sympathy on the part of clarence thomas and samuel alito that the state should be able to protect who is coming in and out and staying within borders, the crisis is working, we see a number of cross s -- crossings. why shouldn't it come down to states to address the federal

government is not capable or willing to? >> addressing immigration crises like with we are seeing at our southern border which is at its heart a humanitarian crisis. addressing that humanitarian crisis with only criminal enforcement and seemingly unlimited amount of money and resources, an idea that's based on criminalizing and being cruel to people clearly does not work. the federal government and the state government has not together spent 30 years and billions of dollars attempting to address this problem with criminalization, with deterrence measures that clearly have not worked. enforcing it in this unlawful way, will not solve the problem. it >> thank you so much, obviously

we will be watching here over the next few months before it goes into effect. >> thank you. >> when we come back, drugstore chain rite aid has agreed to a five-year ban from using facial recognition technology after federal officials found the chain falsely accused customome of crimemes and unfairlyly targ people of qatatar r -- cololor. that a and more next. .

>> the ftc is cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence as one of the biggest drugstore changes, the rite aid has stopped for facial

recognition technology for the next five years after they accused of wrongly identifying customers as criminals and unfairly targeting people of color, matt egan joins us now with details. walk us through what happened. >> this feels like something out of a sci-fi film, regulators say that right 80 used ai facial technology technology to find customers that would commit crimes, some of them were denied entry, others detained or searched, here is the problem. the technology is far from perfect. what actually happened was according to the ftc, they identified customers wrongly as criminals. in some cases, they even accuse them of being criminals in front of friends and family, let me read you what the ftc said, rite aid's reckless use of facial surveillance systems left its customers facing humiliation and other harms,

it's order violations put consumers sensitive information at risk, the ftc found this technology used by rite aid unfairly targeted people of color that was mostly used in neighborhoods with large black and latino asian communities. rite aid has agreed to a five- year ban from using facial technology. they also -- file for bankruptcy in october. the settlement is the bankruptcy court judge. they are pushing back on some allegations, we fundamentally disagree. with facial recognition allegation agencies complaint, the allegations relate to a pilot program then calmly deployed in a limited number of swords -- stortz, -- stores that they stopped using this technology three years ago

before the ftc launches investigation. still, i think these allegations were only going to raise more concerns about privacy and security implications, they will also raise doubts as technology is rolled out elsewhere including malls and at stadiums other stores. >> it certainly does, thank you for that very interesting report. the lead with jake tapper start after this short break.

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

> closed capaptioning broug toto you by y mr. bookok.com. >> should donald trump's actions and inaction