the lewis and clark expedition. watch the encore presentation of books that shaped america on c-span or c-span.org book shaped s that shaped america. c-span is your unfiltered view of america. funded by these television companies and more, including charter communication. charter is proud to be recognized as an internet provider. charter communication support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: the colorado supreme court

ruled the former president is disqualified from appearing on the state's 2024 primary ballot. your reactions to the news. republicans dial-in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. join the conversation in a text at (202) 748-8003. that is the same line for colorado residents. we want to hear from you, your reaction to your supreme court. you can join us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan, or on x at @cspanwj. " bars from public office anyone who took an oath as an officer

of the united states to support the constitution of the united states and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless congress removes such disability by a two thirds vote." that is what section three of the 14th amendment says. here is what the justices on the colorado supreme court said in the ruling. it was a 4-3 decision. president trump did not merely incite insurrection when the seeds on the capitol was underway, he repeatedly demanded vice president mike pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. these actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection. president trump's expressed efforts over several months exhorting his supporters to march to the capitol to

prevent what he alleged was a fraud where indisputably overt and voluntary. from the supreme court justices yesterday who said the former president cannot appear on the primary ballot. it does not address the general election ballot. we went your reaction to this news this morning. on the front pages of the national newspapers, the former president was in iowa yesterday campaigning for 2024. he did not directly address this ruling. here's a little bit of what he had to say. [video] >> it is no wonder crooked joe biden and the lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. they are willing to violate the constitution at levels never seen before to win this election. joe biden is a threat to democracy. he's a threat. they are weaponizing law

enforcement for high-level election interference because we are beating them so badly in the polls. the new cbs poll -- i always used to talk about polls but only if they were good. i did not mention of them if they were bad. i did not talk about them. a little bit like the fake news would do so i feel embarrassed by it. the new cbs poll just out house asset 50% in this -- 58%. 40 points behind us. the new morning consul poll has us at 66% nationwide. the santos at 11% and haley at 11%. they said haley is surging because she went from 9% to 11%. i went up seven points. she went up two points. it's hard to go up seven when you're almost at the top. not that many points left.

she went up two and the headline is haley is surging. we are trouncing the primary field at 69% with desantis at 13% and haley at 9%. t did interview -- he didn't interview. ladies and 11, it's a great audit to have governor ron desantis with us. no,, no it is desantis. that's good branding. do you agree? he is sanctimonious. . are dominating by 10, 11, 12, even 14 points. the washington post had us up 11. this must be an outlier. they spent 1.5 million dollars on a pole, the washington post, and they panicked. they said this must be an outlier. they said we think our poll must be wrong.

we have even better numbers than that. they are going crazy. none of this matters if you don't show up to support us on january 15 and again in november. you have to show up. even if you think we are going to win by a lot, you have to show up. winning by a lot lot is very meaningful. as countries watch from afar, because we would never have any of these problems if i were president. when they see the support we have -- we have incredible support. we have more support than we did in big 20 or 2016 -- 2020 or 2016. we did better by a lot, by millions and millions of votes in 2020. it was a rigged election. the radical left democrats rigged the election of 2020. we are not going to allow them to rig the presidential election of 2024. we are not going to allow it. host: former president trump in iowa yesterday at a campaign

rally. not directly addressing the ruling by the colorado supreme court. 4-3 decision that said he's disqualified from appearing on the primary ballot in 2024. you heard him talk about polls. the new york times. many see criminality but support the former president anyway. overall, 58 percent of voters nationwide believe mr. trump committed serious federal crimes according to the survey, including 66% of independent voters. yet mr. trump continues to clobber his closest competitors in the primary by more than 50 percentage points. pulling in the support of 64% of republican primary voters nationwide. the poll was conducted before a court ruling on tuesday which injected more legal uncertainty into the presidential race. the colorado supreme court ruled he is disqualified from holding office again. he engaged in insurrection leading up to the january 6

storming of the capitol, a decision the former president plans to appeal to the supreme court. his primary lead has swelled since the summer even though the share of republicans and republican leaning independents who believe he engaged in criminality rose to 27% from 17% in july. gary in connecticut, you are a first. your reaction to the colorado supreme court's decision? caller: good morning. i want to say i'm complete the opposed the donald trump. always have been. the state of colorado branding him as an insurrectionist and keeping it from being on the ballot somehow to me violate his fourth amendment due process right. it would seem to me he would need to be convicted of committing insurrection against the united states before they can ban him. i don't think it's enough. i think the fourth amendment --

the supreme court may find he has a right to be on the ballot. thank you. host: that is where the former president's campaign will take this. a statement from the spokesperson. the colorado supreme court issued a flood decision and we will swiftly file an appeal. the united states supreme court and a concurrent request for a stay of this undemocratic decision. we have full confidence the supreme court will rule in our favor and put an end to these un-american lawsuits. walter ndc, democratic caller. -- in d.c., democratic caller. caller: i'm not a fan of donald trump of this ruling from colorado is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and illegal. they complete edited context of section three of the 14th amendment makes it abundantly clear if the president is

excluded. it lists senators and every other group except the president. the president is the executive of the country. this is the civil war. the insurrectionists were democrat confederates. that is part of our history. they wanted us to raise up against the country. second point about this, trump was not charged with insurrection. colorado cannot user the federal government -- usurp the federal government. trump did say peacefully make your voices heard and he sent tweets telling his followers at 2:41 and 3:30 p.m. not to do violence. the insurrection claim which the

junior six committee left out because -- january 6 committee left out. these democrats should beat trump at the ballot box. don't cheat. this crap, our party is being the dictators. we say we are trying to stop a dictatorship but we are acting like dictators by trying to violate his fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment rights. let's not do that. let us do it fair and stop trying to go and do all this -- section one of the 14th of them it contradicts section three but you cannot use a flawed one. it cannot be used on the president. period. the republicans who wrote the 14th amendment, they did not put

president in there. host: that was the question posed to this court and a lower court before that, etc. we will take a look at that. kurt, mount union, pennsylvania. your thoughts? caller: good morning, greta. i think it is a scary day in the united states when you start to interfere with elections. basically, the colorado supreme court is interfering in an election. it's scary. the fascism that the other side, the democrats, profess, they are beginning to show. when you start to take away people's choices, take away their freedom to vote, it is scary. it is really scary. host: colin in maryland. caller: thank you for giving me

a chance. the opinion of the colorado court was their political opinion by a political judiciary, political judges. i was not born in this country but i love this country. it's unfortunate i was here during the 2020 election. i have never cast a vote in my life for any presidential election. i saw the election stolen on tv. i saw ballots being shredded. i saw them change the laws. i saw -- it was so obvious. the judges and people look at evidence in the states got together and said there was something wrong here. it was a stolen election.

i will stand by that. host: what news outlets do you watch that you saw this? caller: tv. i keep up with what is going on. i watched the election. i don't belong to any party. i saw what happened. i think the best thing will be for the election to -- there should be no vote -- getting illegals to register and giving the millions of ballots. we have to correct what happened last time otherwise it will not turn out right for us in the future. i love this country. host: we will dig into this decision by the supreme court

justice. the political investigative reporter with the guardian joining us on the phone this morning to talk about it. it was a 4-3 decision. who are these -- we just lost peter. we will go to him when we can. let's go back to the calls. caroline in alexandria, virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. please give me a chance to say what i've got to say. i believe in democracy. i can't believe we send young men and women, children, fathers, brothers over to different countries to fight for democracy. then we get it in our own country. we don't understand people done died for democracy.

how can we do this? a man in an office -- was in office. never been in the service. should have never been in the service. father never been in the service. he stepped on our democracy so bad. stepped on people's heads. they want him to be in office. they are going to send our men and women overseas to get killed for him to live like they do. i just don't understand how these people don't understand what is going on. host: all right. mike in wilmington, delaware. independent. your reaction to this colorado supreme court decision? caller: i'm surprised of all the kerfuffle and the bigness of this. i think you are the only person i have heard say this correct. i was watching a lot of news yesterday.

the rule was that trump was not allowed now to be on the gop primary ballot. to me this not a big thing. he could win the primary. he could win the candidate of the republican party without the colorado vote. i don't know why it's a big thing. you said i believe correctly that this did not necessarily affect the journal election. host: the ruling did not address the general election. caller: ok. is it assumed that the ruling for the gop primary is taking effect and it will affect also the general election? is that why people are all excited/ ?

host: we last set of hugo lowell. front page of the wall street journey. they say colorado is not central to trump's electoral prospects. a number of similar challenges have been filed in other states. they note that. colorado not central to his election. your question about what happens on the general -- and the general election is a good one. hugo lowell is with the guardian, a political investigation's reporter joining us on the phone. before we get to that question, break down the decision here. four justices says he's disqualified from the primary ballot, three disagreed. guest: i think it's important to remember we have a stay on this ruling pending trump's appeal.

trump made clear he will appeal to the supreme court. as things stand trump will probably be on the primary ballot in colorado, which is the practical indication in all of this -- implication in all of this. the supreme court will certainly hear the case. the question in which order with respect to the other cases before it and how quickly it is going to rule. with the 14th amendment issue this has direct implications with trump's other appeal before the d.c. circuit judge in the 2020 election case. the same case jack smith tried to take to the supreme court directly. these two cases are important. there is a question of whether one cancels out the other in

some respect, because if the supreme court wants to find trump engaged in insurrection or in some way incited insurrection than that would knock out a presidential immunity defense trump is claiming to have. i think there are a lot of moving parts here and the supreme court has to decide and be consistent on how he wants to proceed. host: the colorado supreme court justices put a stay on this thinking -- knowing the trump campaign would appeal. there is this january 4 date. why? guest: in colorado, the state has to decide which candidates will be on the ballot by january 5. they have this date in there that have sensibly says we want to give the supreme court time to weigh in. for the put a stay on the ruling pending an appeal from trump.

i think that is the operative line for now. so longest trump appeals he will get a stay. there is no with the supreme court will take this case prior to january 5. we are already at december 20. the idea they will take us up within two weeks is not feasible. they have to have a briefing scheduled and set oral arguments. i guess it is possible. we were here at bush v gore, i guess. the idea we will get a briefing schedule and a decision before january 5 is not feasible. what you will see happen is the supreme court takes the case and for the moment trump remains on the ballot. if the primaries happen and trump wins and after the supreme court decides trump should be off the ballot, that's a decision individual states will

have to address. host: when is the colorado primary? could the supreme court naked decision before that happens -- make a decision for that happens? guest: it's possible. the colorado primary is super tuesday, march 5. if the supreme court hustled there is the potential for us to have a ruling on the 14th and emmett issue by march -- 14th amendment issue by march. it comes back to the question of what happens with respect to the other states where there are similar challenges to trump and trump being on the ballot. one of the challenges is a new hampshire. the new hampshire primary is january 23. if the supreme court was to rule down the road that trump is ineligible from holding office because he did engage in

insurrection, that decision would bind all 50 states. then we are not just looking at colorado. we are looking at every state where there is a ballot challenge. then you would have issues with not only colorado but new hampshire. that primary will be january 23. issues in minnesota, michigan, the state with h -- those states with early primaries. host: we had a viewer say this morning that the section three of the 14th amendment does not list the presidency in the offices that can be accused of insurrection and disqualified for running for office. did this colorado supreme court pick up that question? -- take up that question? guest: in essence yes. what they found was the lower

court erred in its determination that the presidency was not included in the office -- an office that insurrection is could not hold. they affirmed the lower court decision that trump engaged in insurrection and reversed on the decision of whether the presidency was included in section three of the 14th amendment. it will be a tricky thing for trump's lawyers to argue that the presidency is not included, because section three is not necessarily meant to be exhau -- exhaustive of a list. it does not talk about every single office. it talks of it having previously taken an oath. trump did take an oath. i think that is not so much the

designation they want to challenge. in conversations with people close to trump, the thing they will challenge more is in respect to the insurrection element. section three talks about did the defendant engage in insurrection. engagement is a broad term but it does have case law behind it. generally it refers to if someone has an active role and how does the supreme court -- the colorado supreme court get active role? they say trump inside it and some part. the fact he has not been charged or convicted i think with the dampener on that and i feel like that is where the supreme court, if they want to rule for trump would find an opening to do that. host: it has been mentioned he was not impeached for this in the senate. he has not been convicted of insurrection. how do they rule he is

disqualified when those things have not happened? guest: i think there are two separate issues. with the impeachment, that's an argument trump made separately. his double jeopardy claim on his immunity appeal to dismiss the indictment in federal district court. he is saying i was not convicted but i was tried by the senate. that precludes criminal charges against me. that argument does not fly in federal district court and unlikely based on the caselaw law in the federal appeals court. in general that seems to be the weakest of all the arguments trump has. i think there is a stronger point with respect to the fact that he has not been charged. because there is case law for that.

if you are not -- if there is no evidence that has been presented in trial or in a trial that you have engaged in insurrection or incited insurrection, incitement of the charge, it is a higher test than what the colorado district court used when it came to the determination that trump engaged in insurrection. in federal court it is normally reasonable doubt. it will be interesting to see what the interplay is between these things moving together at the same time and how the supreme court applies these terms. host: how do president trump do in colorado and 2020? -- in 2020? what is his strategy in the western state in 2020

4? guest: i don't think this is a state where he has the luxury of -- just taking colorado alone, this is not a state trump will just let go or can afford to let go. i think for him it is crucial and he sees it as crucial. i think in general they go to the supreme court because her all the legal reasons we have seen that this is not a federal issue, it's a case of first impression. they see their chances in a good light. there is another thing to focus on. there is the remedy for congress to reinstate him if trump is ever removed from a ballot. there is that provision for congress to grant amnesty, like they did after the civil war.

there is some discussion in the last 24 hours in trump world about contingencies if they have to get the house republican congress and senate republicans to consider putting him back on the ballot if the supreme court does take them off. host: hugo lowell. you can follow his reporting if you go to theguardian.com, on x. thank you for the information this morning. guest: thank you. host: let's go back to your reactions to this news. as you heard from him, the colorado supreme court ruled that the former president is disqualified from appearing on the primary ballot. they put a stay on their decision until the supreme court can rule. as hugo lowell was saying, he is effectively on the ballot until the supreme court decision. it could impact all 50 states. democratic caller.

let's hear from you. caller: i'm not democratic. i'm independent. i watch fox and i watch msnbc and cnn. i would like to know the truth about whether or not republicans brought this case in colorado. because judge -- says, and he's a top republican, that donald trump don't have to be convicted. that is not what the statute says. i would like a little clarity. if you can help me with that. i would like to know about the justices that did the opinion.

from what i have watched on tv this morning, the dissents matter. host: the dissents matter. there is in the papers this morning the three that dissented did not dissent on merit. they dissented for other reasons. if you are listening to hugo lowell, he talked about some of the questions you brought up. why did the supreme court justices -- i'm sorry, why did the colorado supreme court justices rule when there has been a conviction? he was talking about how they dismissed that claim. that is the argument that the president's lawyers will make when this goes before the supreme court. i just want to read some of the questions from the new york times that the case hinged on.

several questions. was it in insurrection when trump supporters stormed the capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 election? did mr. trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to support us beforehand in the speech that morning and his twitter posts during the attack? the courts have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th amendment without congressional action. does section three apply to the presidency? in the lower court decision, judge sarah wallace who made the district court ruling in colorado said yes to all but the last question, because section three enumerates several offices but not the presidency. and because the presidenti -- presidential oath is different than the other officers, the judge concluded the broad phrase "officers of the united states" did not include the presidency. the colorado supreme court

disagreed. caly in -- clay, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is all my opinion but i think with the woke crowd and banning speakers of the universities, trying to be an elon musk -- ban elon musk on his x, to the colorado supreme court, it is becoming a fascist state. free speech is being eroded. now the colorado residents are not able to vote in a presidential election about whom they would like. i think it's a disgrace. host: ron in michigan, independent. your reaction to the colorado supreme court? caller: i like the guardian.

i read it carefully. what i'm looking at is the supreme court is picked by legislators to make decisions regarding the constitution. the constitution is the foundation of our country. for people to take their constitution and dilute it to the extent that we are hearing from the republicans is absolutely nonsense. the supreme court made a decision based on their knowledge and i believe it is a foundation for the indictment going forward for trump. trump laid the foundation for his program a year ago. his mouth, his arrogance, his ignorance and sometimes very, very polite speeches are absolutely ridiculous. i would never vote for this man matter what. i am independent and i will take the facts going forward. right now the facts tell me that

trump should be removed. if the rest of the states follow the same program, it is telling the people you don't want this man for office. i agree with that. thank you for your time. that is my comment. host: associated press on this news from yesterday. a divided colorado supreme court declared the former president ineligible for the white house under the u.s. constitution's insurrection clause. the decision, whose justices were appointed by the democratic governors marks the first time in history section three of the 14th amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. mike johnson, speaker the house, republican of louisiana reacting , saying today's ruling to disqualify former president trump from the colorado ballot

is nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack, regardless of political affiliation, every citizen registered to vote should not be denied the right to vote for our former president. aaron in colorado, springs. your line is (202) 748-8003. your reaction? caller: good morning, greta. have not talked to you in a month. it is hard to be first. i'm proud to be a colorado resident today. hopefully other states will follow suit. after missing to mr. lowell, he might be an uphill battle a little bit but -- it might be an uphill battle a little bit but the claim -- when i was in the military he was the commander-in-chief. i believe that is an office. one question. i don't know if anybody can answer it. in light of what happened to

rudy giuliani in the defamation case, with all the rhetoric that trump directed towards those two innocent ladies, if they will be repercussions for that. thanks. host: bruce in colorado, what do you say this morning about your colorado supreme court? caller: my opinion is i'm not one of those know it all know nothings. sorry to insult anybody. i'm not a constitutional scholar like everybody who's -- if they look it up they are going online. a caller knew about section three that donald trump was not supposed to be removed. i did not vote for trump. i don't plan on voting for him. that sort of thing.

i am waiting to see what decision will be made by the people who actually do study law. not sure if it is right that he should be pulled off the ballot when you have people within the state he would like to vote for trump. at this point in time i will wait to see what the people who actually, you know, who actually study law are going to do. i have been for years, the last three or four years, listening to nothing but these conservatives talk about this about the election. let me put it to you this way. when i opened up my ballot in 2020 and there was donald trump-mike pence and then, harris and joe biden, if my vote for biden did not count when they talk about the 81 million and it was rigged, that means these conservative people, your vote did not count. when they try to say people who voted for biden cheated -- what

about connecticut? ok. we've had republicans get caught committing fraud. if you're sitting there trying to say my vote did not count then your vote did not count. let the process go through. bless the people who understand the law and study the constitution, not like these know it all know nothings. if you don't understand what's going on, don't call in with your conspiracy theories. when i was 12 there was a conspiracy theory that john f. kennedy and bruce lee were living on the same island. thank you for letting me talk and everybody have a good day. host: matt is a democratic caller. caller: how are you doing today? i want to say i wonder about a lot of these trumpsters calling in and how they feel -- it seems like a lot of them were excited

about the fact that certain states were considering not having republican primaries at all. that did not seem to bother them. they thought that was fantastic. i want to point that out. i'm glad to see that colorado has risen to the occasion. thank you. host: john in california, republican. caller: good morning, greta. i would like to say that it makes me nervous that the court is doing this. what goes around will come around. this is the first time they have ever done anything like this. i guess from now on we will see democratic candidates be taken off the ballot as well as republican candidates. i think it is a whole bad road to go down. let me give you a story. i worked on an initiative in california. we gathered a bunch of signatures. we submitted. it he went to the superior court and it was rejected because it

had a flaw in it. then we appealed it. he went to appeals court. -- it went to appeals court. the appeals court said pretty much everything that goes through has a flaw in it. the voters would be the ultimate decision. the opponents of the voters, like the democratic collars that have called then can say i don't like trump. that is their opinion. then the republican callers say they like trump, they will not be represented. you let it go through with the flaws, then you debate the flaws. to take it off the ballot is a denial of free speech for the republicans. i am glad they -- i think the supreme court will order -- there is nobody without flaws. every president has had a flaw.

the voter is the ultimate judge. it is up to the different parties to point out the flaws and then the voters decide whether that floor rises to the occasion. -- flaw rises to the occasion. it just sets a precedent that now we will use lawyers and courts to decide elections. i think the whole thing -- i respect the democrats' opinion. i can see why a lot of people hate trump. thing go to the ballot and vote against him. there's a lot of people that like trump and will go vote for him. you cannot deny free speech with a couple of lawyers. i think the whole thing will fail. host: as we heard from hugo lowell earlier and it is written in the new york times, similar lawsuits in minnesota and new hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. a judge in michigan ruled last month the issue was political and not for him to decide.

an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify mr. trump there. the plaintiffs have appealed to the michigan supreme court. deborah in lakewood, colorado. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: i am a liquid native -- lakewood native of colorado. i had wanted to clarify something. the people that brought this case were all republicans. it is only for the republican primary ballot. it is not the national election. a lot of people think that that is what it is. the other point i want to bring up. the reason why trump went after obama's birth certificate was to disqualify him for running for president. this is an eligibility question. it is not were you born in

america, in the united states? how old are you? did you lead an insurrection? it is nothing about your political point of view except you ran an insurrection. those of the points i would like to make. host: on the dissenters, and the washington post, the three sided different reasons for disagreeing with the majority. one would have dismissed the case because trump has not been charged with insurrection. one would have dismissed because trump has not been convicted of a crime and the third did not believe the court had the authority to decide the issue under the state's election code. john in california, republican. your reaction to this news from the colorado supreme court? caller: the colorado supreme court is an open joke. a first-year law student can tell you why they should not

have done this. yet they did. these are learned people. these are experienced people who are actual supreme court judges. they did an open political thing to donald trump. take his name out of it. look what they did to a citizen of the united states. this is so sad. i have to ask this question. when you democrats, one of your big taglines is nobody is above the law. i will ask you, what law are you talking about? the law that the supreme court of colorado says because we can do it and we are timing it close to the time when they are going to print the ballots and hope the supreme court does not settle it quick enough for them to print the ballots, because that is what they did.

host: hugo lowell told us earlier this morning that there is a stay on this decision. the practical outcome is that the former president will be on the ballot until the supreme court rules. the secretary of state and colorado needs to print the names by january 5. it is unlikely the court makes a decision before then. colorado's primary is super tuesday in early march. we will have to see how quickly the supreme court takes up this case and the others and how quickly they decide. frank in aberdeen, maryland. democratic color. -- caller. caller: to those people who say he needs to be indicted or convicted before anything is done, that is not what the amendment says. it says if you engaged or gave material support to the

insurrectionists. that was shown during the trial. it was uncontested by trump. as for the oath, their claim -- i listened to the two and half hour argument. the biggest claim the trump lawyer had was that the president is not an officer of the united states because he stands above all the officers. ridi oath d in the 14th amendment is not the actual oath the president takes. his oath is more encompassing, a greater oath taken by those by military officers. he has to preserve, protect and defend. the constitution of the night states. the first principle is that we

have peaceful transfer of power. i listened on january 6 to the speech on c-span. i'm yelling at the radio, wait a second. he's inciting a riot. the next thing is somebody is being killed as they stormed the capitol. that hasn't happened since 1814. we need to wake up. have a blessed day. host: that is frank talking there. we are showing the video from january 6 speech the former president gave that day. he says he listened. you can go back and listen to it in its entirety. go to our website, c-span.org. go to the archives. put in that day, put in the speech and listen to the entire thing. ron in north carolina,

independent. caller: yes. i would like to say there have been a lot of questions whether there was even an insurrection. they keep referring to this as a riot. the fellow that called and use the word riot. this has been called a riot continually. it seems like the people change the wording to insurrection. i would like to mention these justices were appointed -- they may want to do a background check on them. we don't know who appointed them. we don't know what kind of education they have had. they are probably not qualified to be doing this. host: the associated press noted democratic governors appointed all seven. the decision was 4-3. did you hear that, ron? caller: yes, i heard it. host: you brought up the question of was it an insurrection.

do these other cases around the country involving those that were inside the capitol on january 6, those cases, do they make a difference in this argument when you have the headline from pbs, x proud way leaders sentenced to prison for the capitol insurrection plot? caller: the first word you used, most people don't care for it. the word pbs. that is disgusting . host: this is an associated press story on the pbs website. the former leader of the far right proud boys was sentenced on tuesday to more than three years behind bars for joining a plot to attack the u.s. capitol nearly three years ago. he was the second proud boy to plead guilty to conspiring with other group members to obstruct

the january 6 joint session of congress for certifying president joe biden's electoral victory. the sentence will be a bellwether for other proud boys, conspirators who cooperated with federal prosecutors. let's go to marion in massachusetts. mary, your turn in this conversation. caller: yeah. i was calling to just say i am nonvoting the way i was going to. i think what they are doing to donald trump is really bad. they are making people like me that are independent -- they say he was the man they wanted to run against. they can beat him hands down. my question would be is why are they doing everything in their power to not run against him? to take him off the ballot. i am going from an independent

for this election to voting republican. only for that reason. because that is what i think. i have been watching this for a few months. i see every which way but loose that they are trying to take him off the ballot and take our choice away from us. let the people vote. let the people make the choice. not the courts. the people. that is what the constitution is about. we the people. not the courts. and all the politicians and the media. i see donald trump breaking into the building. i did not see donald trump saying go and destroy washington, like they let everybody else destroy all over

the country. host: understood. reuters has this about who brought this case. the case was brought by a group of colorado voters aided by the advocacy group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington who argued the former president should be disqualified for inciting his supporters to attack the capitol. the court's decision is not only historically justified but necessary to protect the future of democracy and our country. the courts have rejected several lawsuits to keep trump off the primary ballot in other states. the top court rebuffed an effort to disqualify trump from the republican primary and did not rule on an overall eligibility to serve as president. let's hear from jerry in florida. jerry is a republican. you are next. jerry, you have got to mute your television.

i will move on. james from orange park, florida. caller: yes. we really have a lot of experts that seem to know the constitution better than the people that actually wrote it. i find that to be really interesting. anyone involved in insurrection does not have to be actually going to court and be found guilty of insurrection. jefferson davis, the president of the confederacy was barred from public office. he never went to trial. the colorado supreme court, based on their interpretation of the constitution. we know the constitution can actually be interpreted by

people to mean what they want it to mean. the judges have already said the constitution means what we say it means. the judges in colorado basically did that. they interpreted it the way they saw it. i don't -- just because his name does not appear on the ballot i would think the people in colorado could use write in if they wanted to. i don't know if that would bar them from writing in trump on the ballot. thanks very much and merry christmas to all. host: other quick headlines for you. the senate to work on border policy bargain through the holiday. a bipartisan group of senators were trying to break -- cut a deal on a the ukraine and tying it to immigration policies before the senate left for their

holiday break. they were not able to reach an agreement. the work continues according to the washington post. yesterday the ukrainian president held a news conference for two hours. the headline from the washington post's he says his military needs 500,000 more troops. happening in washington yesterday, this is usa today's front-page coverage. the nation honors the legacy of sandra day o'connor. president biden giving remarks at her funeral. you can find out coverage on our website, c-span.org. in the opinion pages of the wall street journal, phil gramm and mike solon. mr. solon is an advisor to u.s. policy metrics. social security was doomed from the start.

you may be interested in reading that. back to the conversation about the colorado supreme court's decision that said the former president is disqualified from the gop primary ballot. andy in fairfax, virginia. independent. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span for this wonderful service and happy holidays to everyone. i worry about parties using instruments of justice and power against each other. republicans have done it too but the democrats now. i encourage leftist friends calling into think about texas throwing by enough of over swing state. i wish neither man was running for president. we have great governors that can make a case. i agree with earlier callers. this will be a bunch of what goes around comes around. it will be tit-for-tat and we have bigger issues to worry about. happy holidays to all. host: mary in virginia,

republican. caller: i find all this kind of confusing but i also know if we want to support our constitution then we need to get everybody on board. we do have a choice to vote for the president. that is our number one choice. thank you. host: mary, what you say in maryland? caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i'm almost in my 70's. i watched the president being sworn in using the words i swear to the constitution to protect the united states. if donald trump says he did not swear into the constitution, is he legally our president? host: all right. caller: do you understand what i'm saying? host: susan and georgia,

republican. -- in georgia, republican. caller: can't people write in trump's name on the ballot? there is a place where you can write in who you want. if his name is not printed on the ballot, why couldn't they just write it in? host: right now he will remain on the ballot. there is a stay on this decision from the colorado supreme court until the supreme court in washington possibly will decide to take this decision up. then how quickly they can decide it and what they decide will impact ballots not only in colorado but across the country as well. elise stefanik, republican leader in the house tweeting her reaction. partisan democratic operatives think they can decipher all coloradans and americans the

next presidential election. it is un-american and democrats are so afraid president trump will win that they are illegally trying to get him off the ballot. joyce in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: hi. my comment is this. the president has a decision -- the person who wins or loses the election has a decision to concede to the winter. if mr. trump wanted to run again for president come all he had to do was concede. one time, i heard him on one of the stations say that he lost the election.

and just let it go and then go on. when the next presidential election comes along, then run. and he has caused so much hate and grief in this country by just not being able to stand up for what is right. host: joyce in pennsylvania, democratic caller. we will take a break. when we come back, the latest on the israel and hamas warrior. and later, joe mcreynolds claiming that chinese hackers are attacking critical u.s. infrastructure. it will be right back. -- we will be right back.