01/24/24 01/24/24 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> we won new hampshire three times now. three. we went it every time. we win the primary, we when the generals come and we -- it is a very special place to me. very important. amy: donald trump wins new hampshire.

nikki haley vows to fight on. should trump be barred from running for president for his role in the january 6 attack on the capitol? or is taking trump off the ballot an anti-democratic measure that will only energize his base? we host a debate. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. former president donald trump won the republican primary in new hampshire, defeating former south carolina governor nikki haley who once served as trump's u.n. ambassador. trump won about 54.5% of the -- 11 percentage points, getting 54.5% of the vote. haley received about 43%. on tuesday night, nikki haley vowed to stay in the race. >> i have news for all of them, new hampshire is first in the

nation. it is not the last in the nation. this race is far from over. amy: during his victory speech, donald trump stood alongside two of his former rivals, senator tim scott and vivek ramaswamy. trump called haley an imposter and falsely claimed he had won the general election in new hampshire twice before, even though he lost to hillary clinton in 2016 and to joe biden in 2020. >> this is a great, great state. we won new hampshire three times now. three. we win it every time. we win the primary, we win the generals. it is very special to me. very important. amy: with his victory on tuesday, trump becomes the first non-incumbent republican candidate to win both the iowa

caucus and new hampshire primary in the modern era as he moves closer to a rematch with president joe biden in november. biden wasn't on the ballot in new hampshire's democratic primary, but he still won the state as a write-in candidate. biden didn't run in the primary after new hampshire refused a request by the democratic national committee to move its imary until after r uth carolina's. biden's final vote count is still being tallied. congressmember dean phillips placed second with about 20% of the vote. marianne williamson placed third with about 5%. you can see our interview with her at democracynow.org. we will have more on the primary, going to new hampshire, after headlines. israel has killed at least 210 palestinians in gaza over the past 24 hours as it intensifies its bombardment of the city of khan younis. israel has issued new evacuation orders to over 500,000

palestinians in khan younis where many had sought refuge from israel's attacks in the northern gaza strip. on tuesday, at least six palestinians died when a missile hit one of the u.n.'s largest shelters in khan younis. the british news outlet itv has filmed israeli forces fatally shooting a palestinian man in gaza shortly after he gave an interview about trying to help others evacuate to a safe area. the shocking footage showd ramzi abu sahloul was shot as he stood with other men carrying a white , one flag. this is part of itv's report. >> the israeli's came to us and told us to evacuate but they did not let my brother out. we wanted to try to get them, god willing.

>> the interview complete, our cameraman walked away. then this happened. the interviewee had been shot and fatally wounded. you can see them place their flags on his chest. as he was carried away, the white flag was turning red. amy: at the united nations, secretary general antonio guterres reiterated his call for a gaza cease-fire. >> the entire population of gaza , destruction at the scale unparalleled in recent history. nothing can justify the collective punishment of the palestinian people. amy: the u.n. secretary-general went on to criticize statements by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and other israeli leaders opposing a two-state solution.

>> last week's clear and repeated rejection of the two state solution at the highest level of the israeli government is not acceptable. the refusal and the denial to the statehood of palestinian people will prolong the conflict that has become -- to global peace and security. amy: guterres' comments came as "the wall street journal" reports a group of five arab countries have proposed a plan to end the war in gaza and create a pathway toward a palestinian state. as part of the deal, saudi arabia would also recognize the state of israel. israel has revealed more details about how 21 israeli soldiers died in a single incident in gaza on monday. the idf says the reservists were planting explosive mines to blow up two buildings in eastern gaza. during a firefight, hamas militants hit one of the mines and set off a chain reaction

that toppled the buildings with israeli troops trapped inside. israel says the buildings were being leveled to create a so-called buffer zone in eastern gaza. "the intercept" reports this appears to be the first time the israeli military has publicly admitted that its systematically destroying whole areas of gaza with the intent of depopulating the area. president biden traveled to virginia tuesday for a campaign rally focused on abortion rights. biden's speech was interrupted at least 13 times by protesters calling for him to support a ceasefire in gaza. one protester screamed out, "genocide joe, how many kids have you killed today?" close four more years. four more years. amy: the new york police department has launched an investigation after

pro-palestinian students at columbia university were sprayed on friday with a hazardous foul-smelling chemical during a campus protest. eight students were hospitalized. the group students for justice in palestine has alleged the chemical attack was carried out by two students who are former members of the israeli military. no arrests have yet been made. the u.s. military has carried out strikes inside both yemen and iraq as fears of a regional war in the middle east grow. in iraq, the u.s. hit three sites connected to a militia with ties to iran. iraq's national security adviser qassem al-aaraji condemned the attack saying, "the u.s. should pile on pressure for a halt to the israeli offensive in gaza rather than targeting and bombing the bases of an iraqi national body." meanwhile, the u.s. bombed yemen

again earlier today, targeting what officials described as houthi anti-ship missiles. this comes as houthi forces continue to target commercial ships in the red sea and gulf of aden as part of a campaign to pressure israel to halt its assault on gaza. a russian transport plane reportedly carrying 65 ukrainian prisoners of war has crashed in russia's belgorod region near ukraine. according to russia, media there -- according to russian media, they all died. russia's foreign ministry has accused ukraine of downing the military plane but provided no evidence. ukraine said it is investigating what happened and has accused russia of "carrying out special information operations directed against ukraine." the crash comes a day after at least 18 ukrainians were killed and 130 were injured as russia fired a barrage of missiles at several cities, including kyiv and kharkiv.

ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy said 130 residential buildings were struck in the attacks tuesday. in other news from europe, sweden is now a step closer to joining the nato military alliance. on tuesday, the turkish parliament voted to finally approve sweden's membership. this leaves hungary as the only country remaining that needs to approve sweden's accession. this comes as 90,000 troops from the united states and other nato nations are preparing to take part in nato's largest military drills since the cold war. the bulletin of the atomic scientists is warning the world remains as close to global annihilation as ever before. the bulletin has announced its doomsday clock remains at 90 seconds before midnight, where it was first set for the first time last year. princeton university professor alex glaser spoke on tuesday. >> when we set the clock last year, there were major concerns

that nuclear weapons could be used in ukraine. today's clock setting was still overshadowed by the war in ukraine, but also the war in gaza, which has caused enormous human suffering and could lead to a broader conflict in the region involving several nuclear weapon states and regional powers. amy: a u.s. federal appeals court has revived a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the mexican government against u.s. gunmakers. in 2021, mexico sued six gun manufacturers, including glock and smith & wesson, for aiding and abetting the unlawful transfer of hundreds of thousands of guns annually into mexico, helping to fuel drug cartel violence. mexico estimates 70% of the guns trafficked into mexico come from the united states. in related news, mexico is calling on the biden administration to investigate how drug cartels are

increasingly obtaining u.s.-military grade weapons, including rocket launchers, grenades, and belt-fed machine guns. "the los angeles times" has laid off about 115 journalists, slashing the size of its newsroom by 20%. many of those who lost their job were journalists of color, including jean guerrero, who was the only latina columnist for the opinion desk. the paper also laid off its only reporters who focused on covering black and asian communities in southern california. the layoffs are the largest at "the l.a. times" since billionaire patrick soon-shiong bought the paper in 2018. in other media news, "time magazine" has laid off 30 journalists. that's 15% of its unionized editorial staff. meanwhile, "the baltimore sun" is in a state of turmoil after it was recently purchased by david smith, the chair of the right-wing news network sinclair. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report.

i'm amy goodman in new york, joined by democracy now!'s juan gonzález in chicago. hi, juan. juan: hi, amy. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. amy: former president donald trump won new hampshire's primary on tuesday by over 11 percentage points. a vote of 54%, defeating former u.n. ambassador nikki haley who got 43%. haley was the last major challenger to trump after florida governor ron desantis ended his presidential bid on sunday night. trump is the first non-incumbent republican presidential candidate to win races in both iowa and new hampshire since both states began leading the election calendar in 1976. in his victory speech on tuesday, trump criticized haley for losing new hampshire and vowed he would beat president

biden in november. >> we have won a must ever single pulled in the last three months against crooked joe biden. and she does not win those polls. this is not your typical victory speech. let's not have somebody take a victory when she had a very bad night. she had a very bad night. amy: nikki haley will pass on the nevada caucuses federal aid, and put all of her money into ad for february 24 primary in her home state of south carolina. in her concession speech last night, she vowed to continue her campaign. >> new hampshire is first in the nation. it is not the last.

this race is far from over. there are dozens of states left to go. and the next one is my sweet state of south carolina. amy: on the democratic side, president joe biden won his party's primary but did so as a write-in candidate. he did not campaign or appear on the ballot after the democratic national committee, supported by biden, voted to start its primary season next month in south carolina. new hampshire's state government, controlled by republicans, would not comply with the dnc's new rules and scheduled the primary for last night. as a result, biden did not win any delegates from new hampshire. his final vote count is still being tallied. commerce member dean phillips came second with about 20% of the vote with marianne williamson placing third with about 5%.

for more, we're joined by arnie arnesen, a longtime radio and tv host in new hampshire. former new hampshire legislator and the democratic gubernatorial candidate in the 1992 elections. she is host of the attitude on wnhn-fm in concord, new hampshire. welcome back to democracy now! i think you were our first guest in 1996 when we were covering the you hamsher primary. >> don't tell anyone. your aging both of us. i've been covering politics with you for such a long time. thank you for having me back. amy: if you can first respond to trump's win, the significance, and explain how the new hampshire primary works with independents, with republicans. he got something like three quarters of the republican vote, but i think nikki haley beat him when it came to independents. >> let me -- it is a quirky

place. we have a law in new hampshire which was written in 1975 that the new hatcher primary has to come one week before any of the primary in the country. when the democrats decided to go to south carolina, we could not change the law. the law says we have to have a primary and the primary was yesterday. republicans kept the same calendar so they had an official primary and the democrats had an unofficial primary. the law was we were going to have a primary hook or crook. they were not going to rewrite the law. it was beneficial to them, the republicans. that is one of the reasons why donald trump had the only official primary and there was a write-in joe biden. there are three groups in new hampshire, republicans, democrats, and undeclared's who are the largest register group in new hampshire. over 40%. as a result of the undeclareds,

and new hampshire, if there is -- there is a choice. they can pick up democratic knowledge or ballot. on the day of the primary. there was no reason to pick up a democratic knowledge because what is the point? the motivation for them, all the motivation was to pick a republican ballot. what were they going to do with they picked it up? they really only had nikki, i describe as mega polite, or they had maga. they had donald trump. a lot of them were -- there's no way they could support donald trump. republicans may become a conservatives baby or even something moderate, but donald trump was so offensive to them that there was no way they were going to do it. so nikki benefited from the undeclareds having nowhere to go on the democratic side. that is one of the reasons why

she was so successful with these undeclareds, more moderate voters. donald trump was able to clean up with what? the conservative republican base because republicans today are maga republicans. she was trying to somehow convince the small number left of more traditional republicans and then grab those undeclareds and say, vote for me. there's something important here. she lost by 11 percentage points. everyone says she may still have a future. this state was designed for nikki haley. if there was a state she could win in in the entire united states, it was this state and she still lost by 11 points. i just posted this on facebook. she had everything in her political backpack and she still lost. why? she had an affable political windsock named chris sununu who

basically was attached at her head and gave probably more speeches than she did and was more positive about her election that even she was. she had koch money. the koch network decided in december they were going to pick nikki to support. they were pouring millions and millions of dollars into her campaign, many she did not have. but they were able to do it. the americans for prosperity has been operating in new hampshire for decades. the new the state and kind and mailers to do, how to bring people out and spent millions on her. she also had the undeclareds only having one choice to vote in the gop primary. she had no democratic primary of consequence because it was a write-in. what is new hampshire? we are a highly educated, rich, white state that does not go to

church. compared to iowa, where the second least church state in the country. when you look at all of those pieces, amy, she should have won. but she could not win. what does that tell you? she does not have a future. the only future is not whether he is a convicted felon -- even she said she would vote for him if he was the nominee if he was a convicted felon. she is looking at the fact he is probably not the healthiest man on the planet and therefore she wants to be the person second in command in case he falls apart. if he does she will say, look, i survived so much, maybe i should be your nominee. juan: i wanted to ask you about joe biden's role here. you wrote in a piece, attempting to make south carolina the first in the nation democratic primary 2024 was one of the biggest political blunders in your

decades long time in public service. why do you think that? >> i don't think new hampshire should be a prima donna. and assumed to go first. i have always said that. this was not the time to make the switch. in 2028, give it to somebody else. because it was donald trump, because there's such a privation of lies, that meant if there was going to be a joe biden, you could not cede iowa warden hatcher to just republican conversation it was going to be covered nationally or internationally and over and over again. it is bad enough trump has an echo chamber everywhere but as it was, joe biden gave him a bigger echo chamber because there is no democratic conversation in iowa and new hampshire. even if he thought people were running against donald trump, whether it was ron desantis ,vivek, or nikki, they never touched trump. all the negativity about why

they should be the next candidate for the republicans was not about they should defeat trump, they were defeating biden . to a large extent, he ceded them the playing ground, allowed them to continue the distortion of the economy, the ideas of the border -- all of those things became the headlines and nothing about what he had accomplished, who he was, even the conversation about abortion. now it is the third rail for republicans. they basically did not have another voice. by deciding to go to south carolina, it was a yawn. it is assumed he is going to win. he doesn't gain anything was south carolina but he would have gained something by having another -- another message coming out of iowa, new hampshire, as are focusing on with the choice would be in 2024 for president. it was a stupid political mistake. it doesn't mean we should always be first, but not in 2024 with trump running for president

again. this is a threat to democracy, an invitation to fascism. we could look at a country that we do not recognize after the november election god for bid trump wins. juan: what were you able to see in terms of trump expanding his base in new hampshire compared to previous elections in which he has run? >> did he expand his face? his republicans. his face are maga. he does not expand his face but if he's going to win the nomination, he doesn't need to. inhihis state perhs he mit' n need totout he could not accomplish it. atats papa of the problem. i i scribed nikki haley ass democracy-light. why? because she is one of the individuals that says joe biden won i i2020. to be a good republican, you have to say joe biden did not win in 2020. she said he won in 2020.

as has if donald trump is a convicted felon and happens to get the nomination, i will still vote for him. if you don't buy into the lie that joe biden isn't legit, you can't be republican anymore. and if you believe joe biden is the president of the united states, then that is where you would expand your base. but he cannot expand his face because he demands the following that follows him in his cult to say joe biden is illegitimate, i am actually your president and i am the one to win b bause i will be your retribution. every time amy says, chaos follows donald trump. ess what? ththats what donald trumpovoves. he les t t chaosos. he flourishes inin the chaos. when pplple say he did not debate this whole time. yes, he did. you know where he debated? in front of judges. he loves being in a new york

courtroom because he would rather debate a judge than anyone about whether he should be the nominee for president. amy: arnie arnesen, when he called haley an imposter, he falsely claimed he had won the general election vote in new hampshire in 2016 against hillary clinton. he did not, she did. and in 2020 with joe biden. he won new hampshire, trump did not. as he continued that lie. >> amy, your acting like facts have meaning. everyone kept saying, remember when he said that, devout he mixed up nancy pelosi a nikki haley about january 6? he did not mix it up. that was not a senior moment. that was intentional. now he is doing this merge so nikki is nancy pelosi, the request and, anyone who has taken him on and maybe defeated him.

now she becomes that person. cult does not care about the facts. you can say donald trump loss. how come he never loses. the base believes he never loses. you and i are focused on numbers, on votes come on fax. that is basically not an essential requirement for people that support donald trump. they don't need facts. they just need him. amy: arnie arnesen, thank you for being with us longtime radio , and tv host in new hampshire. host of the attitude on wnhn-fm in concord, new hampshire. former new hampshire legislator and democratic gubernatorial candidate in the 1992 elections. we will stay in new hampshire next at and speak with journalist jeff sharlet, a dartmouth professor in hanover, new hampshire, and author of "the undertow: scenes from a slow civil war." stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: "ride free" by new hampshire's eris drew. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. donald trump beat nikki haley by 11 points in new hampshire despite nearly half the electorate being comprised of independent voters. haley won six of 10 independents on tuesday, but she lost three quarters of republicans. according to the associated press, trump was backed by republicans who prioritize immigration and held a slight advantage among those prioritizing the economy, the two top issues among gop voters in new hampshire and iowa. for more we go to hanover, new hampshire, where we are joined by award-winning journalist and author jeff sharlet.

he teaches english and creative writing at dartmouth college and the author of "the undertow: scenes from a slow civil war." jeff, welcome back to democracy now! start off by responding to the primary last night and to trump 's pretty much trouncing of nikki haley. >> we saw it coming and it still felt awful here in new hampshire. the very tactics to slow it down did not work. a lesson we can take from new hampshire is we are still seeing a lot of media speak of nikki haley, can't you go on, "the new york times" has this race -- questions have long been settled. trump is the nominee, fascism is on the ballot. i think that was clear in new hampshire. i think it is also worth noticing here in new hampshire when you talk to folks, yes, opposition to trump but no one

is saying they will vote for trump if he is the nominee. this was not strong support for haley. let's move on. i don't even want to talk about south carolina. i don't want to talk about nevada. i want to talk about how we look at this thing that is threatening us nationally. juan: jeff, you tweeted that new hampshire is not a "moderate state [captioning made possible by democracy now!] -- "moderate state. there is no damn moderate state anymore." confusion people had, new hampshire liens -- it is a form of conservatism, libertarian. we have a not insignificant succession this movement in our state legislator called the free movement which began here it dartmouth college. where as iowa of the form of reactionary politics was evangelical. i think a lot of the political

press has been stuck in an old paradigm of social conservatives or business conservatives. those things have merged. you see it clearly in some of the plans being formulated for a second trump term. they're not going to be caught surprised when he comes back to office. for instance, the right wing heritage foundation working with 74 other major groups, both evangelical and libertarian-leaning have come up with something called project 2025. he begins with evangelical values, putting the family first, saving the children. it goes on saying let's realign the goals of america with management. this, by the way, coming from the republicans which is fooling people, some people come into thinking it is the workers party. it is an openly pro-business and pro-so-called family values, which of course, are being

expressed now as hate values. amy: let's play a clip jamie dimon, the j.p. morgan ceo talking about how trump has been right on many issues. he spoke on cnbc. >> i don't think voting for trump -- take a step back and be honest. nato, immigration. he grew the economy quite well. tax reform worked. amy: can you respond -- it is not only jamie dimon that -- there's a consensus at davos that trump is going to win. >> if we look back at the history of how fascist movements grow, and i want to emphasize the fascist movement is not a fascist government. there is a chance to stop it. we see a period of adaptation. that is what you saw at davos. those folks playing the odds and saying, could i get together?

could a working coalition with people? -- could i work in coalition with people to stop this fascism or find a way to prosper in it? at davos, it was prosper in fascism. to stop it, we're going have to think other places. amy: i want to go to donald trump addressing the republican jewish coalition annual leadership summit in october. this goes to the number one issue in new hampshire, which was immigration. >> they want to destroy our country. under biden, we have not one but two immigration disasters. we have one on the border and we have one in the biden state department which is admitting colossal amount of jihadists

into our communities and campuses and our refugee programs. that is why you see all of these big demonstrations in new york and chicago. nobody can believe what is taking place. they are letting them in at levels no one has ever seen before. we don't want to be like europe with jihads on every corner. that is what happens. we're going to be like europe. take a look at london, paris, what is going on over there. we want to be united states of america and make our country great again. right now we don't have a great country. as president, i will end the mass importation of anti-seven asian -- anti-semitism into the united states. we will keep radical islamic terrorists the hell out of our country. we were keeping them out. we were keeping them out. juan: jeff sharlet, if you can respond to those comments of donald trump? especially given the fact new

hampshire is probably one of the state's perhaps least affected by immigration in the united states given its distance from the southwest border. >> at first i sort of want to say i'm a trump end end is going to the mass importation of anti-semitism in the united states, which does not happen. he alone is responsible for a lot of made an america anti-semitism. it is one of his products. the question of immigration -- i think i voter i think and bedford, new hampshire, very wealthy community -- described on the way to play pickle ball she stopped to vote for trump. her issues were, we have got to get the emigrants out. she did not say undocumented people, illegal immigrants. she said we have to get all of the emigrants out so the economy can grow. you see this kind of all political press of breaking down on issues. do you care about social issues,

immigration, economics? in trumpism, all of these things emerge. you heard that in the response where he is invoking this fear of jihad. the way trumpism works, it adds enemies. five years ago, it wasn't particularly talking about trans rights. new hampshire is now a frontline state in the struggle for trans freedom as our legislator takes up the kinds of laws nursing in places like utah -- laws you are seeing in places like utah. i know the tim tatian a strong sign, we know what he is, we need to see how the movement is growing, how it is mutating, how it is taking the original fear of islam and began with adding more and more fears and then combining them so they are

indistinguishable in the mind of the trump voter. juan: so what is the way forward for those who are opposed to this growing fascism, especially given the fact so many young people in the united states play such a key role in the last election are being increasingly turn off by the war policies of the biden administration? >> young people don't want to vote for biden. i am here at dartmouth college. if i cantered any students who wrote in biden, they did not tell me about it. they either tell me the guy from minnesota or haley. that is significant. also, we need to contend with this, if you look at the republican primary voters who voted for trump, the strongest contingent was in the youth.

for a long time in american politics, it is as much of a truism on the left as so much of the kind of old maxims of political journalism's that aren't working, is the young will save us, the youth will save us. we look at trump growing his support in the 18 to 29 sector. we look at trump growing his support paradoxically amongst those not 20 biden voters, most radical of what biden is doing and gaza, ok, so what is the solution? a significant number have been conned into the idea trump is an antiwar candidate the guy -- you hear trump never stopped any worse. trump is able to play both sides. he says i'm going to raze gaza and at the same time in an age of machine media, you saw with "the baltimore sun" going down and "the los angeles times" so

there's less and less information for young voters. they are going to be more vulnerable to the con trump is trying to give. how do we do it? i don't have a political -- i do think it is popular front time, broad coalition time. i don't know how we built a left liberal to stop trump. i'm not want to tell anyone to vote for biden but i know we have to stop trump. amy: i want to follow up on something you said about the importation of anti-semitism and trump is most responsible for that you said. i mean, going back to university, for example, virginia, that march in charlottesville, those saying jews will not replace has come the white supremacists, from there to the insurrection. we will have a debate of trump

thing taken off the ballot in various states. on that issue of what in fact he represents, what the insurrection was about, what his role with the university of virginia protests, his comments on them. >> in charlottesville where they chanted "jews will not replace us," trump has managed to do something new in the antisemitism field which is quite an accomplishment anything about it. age-old hatred and he is managed to innovate, which is to say he's created a kind of anti-semitism. you saw it in the speech after his first indictment where he leads off by saying, what is jack smith's real name? line "we're good to drive out the globalists, chase out the kind of communists" and he is qg two different gospels from the

new testament. drive out and chase out. just to make sure no one missed it. but then tweaking a little bit and making anti-semitism such the explicit anti-semites -- and they are out there. folks like charlie kirk i believe it is who are starting to question what used to call the judeo part of judeo-christian values. good, this is a kind of narrow and bigoted idea of america. they're saying, no, it is just christian. on one hand you have the hard-core anti-semites saying please and the other hand you have trump plane to this idea of an international banker -- look at the people he says are really behind nikki haley. it sounds like he is saying rothschild. he is the one producing testament to some and at the same time campaigning, just as he is conning some young people, conning jewish voters into thinking he somehow is not introducing a new level of hate

into the united states based on his promise to build on the genocide in israel and make it even worse. amy: jeff sharlet, thank you for being with us, journalist and author, professor of english and creative writing at dartmouth college. he is the author of the book "the undertow: scenes from a slow civil war." up next, should donald trump be barred from running for president for his role in the january 6 attack on the capitol or is taking trump of the ballot and antidemocratic measure that will only energize his base? we will host a debate. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: "it's the same old song" by

fourtops. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. former president trump is the clear front runner in the race for the republican nomination despite the fact that he faces 91 criminal charges in various cases related to mishandling classified documents, arranging payoffs, and seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election. it is that last charge related to the january 6, 2021 attack on the capitol that is the cause of most controversy. there are efforts nationwide to remove trump from the 2024 presidential ballot based on the 14th amendment, which says public officials who have "engaged in insurrection" are disqualified from ever serving again. on february 8, the supreme court will healer an appeal from donald trump after judges in colorado ruled the former president is ineligible to appear on the colorado primary

ballot. the secretary of state of maine also barred trump from the ballot but a judge ruled he should stay on the ballot until the supreme court rules on the issue. did trump violate the constitution and should he be barred from running for president? or is taking trump off the ballot an anti-democratic measure that will only energize his base? we are hosting a debate with two guests. in washington, d.c., we are joined by praveen fernandes, the vice president at the constitutional accountability center, which filed an amicus brief in the colorado lawsuit enforcing trump's constitutional disqualification. we are also joined by samuel moyn, a professor of law and history at yale university. his recent piece for "the new york times" is titled "the supreme court should overturn the colorado ruling unanimously." professor moyn is joining us today from toronto. praveen fernandes, talk about why you back these efforts

state-by-state from colorado to maine to take trump off the ballot. >> we have always been committed to enforcing the text in history of the constitution, including the text in history of section three of the 14th amendment here for our democracy it could not be more important than to hold accountable donald trump for his actions around january 6, 2021. this is important not only for holding donald trump accountable, but also important for giving meaning to a constitutional provision that was designed precisely for instance is like this. juan: samuel moyn, you disagree. you have written to bar mr. trump from that ballot now would be the wrong way to show him to the exit.

why do you think that? >> donald trump is clearly a menace and getting rid of hemp is a huge priority, but everything depends on how it is done. i have two concerns. first, a legal one. the legal case is not airtight under this provision of the constitution. the risk is millions of americans who back trump and have looked past were forgiven what he did on january 6 will regard the supreme court's intervention as illicit much the way we all think bush v gore was a tragic mistake. and there is strategy. i worry getting rid of trump this way could backfire. in particular, it saves the democrats from the obligation to make their case to the american people that they should win. >> juan: what about this issue of granting more power to the

supreme court in terms of collections? also, the issue of how the trump base might react to this removal of him from the ballot? >> i think we can have a separate conversation about whether the supreme court as an institution commands more power, vis-à-vis the other branches, but there's no reason for particular modesty for the u.s. supreme court with respect to enforcing section three of the 14th amendment. i think there no reason for the supreme court to run away from the text in history of this provision. i guess i am skeptical this notion that somehow leaving it to the voters is a better strategy. i think the voters certainly spoke in 2020 and resoundingly

chose president biden. president trump at that time challenged the results of those elections in more than 60 cases and lost. despite realizing he lost, sometimes at the hands of judges that he appointed and if by all of his closest advisers explaining he lost, trump in a violent faction of his supporters tried to wrest power by force, thwarting the will of the electorate. this notion that somehow leaving it to the voters will somehow get us out of a problem, i don't think it is convincing to me. i am wondering if professor moyn can give us the history, talk about the civil war and the decisions to keep confederate from running for office. >> it is a great amendment.

if that is all there were in the constitution, i would be much more favorable to that document and to the supreme court interpreting it. it was noble after the civil war the radical republicans who had done so much to free the slaves through war to pass the 14th amendment, which tried to impose democracy after the war on the south by keeping ex-confederates from running. there is no doubt that was the purpose of section three. there are a couple of problems, though. i admire praveen, but there are doubts whether it covers presidents who were allegedly insurrectionary's, whether congress has to act first.

there other objections, too. then there is a bigger issue which is section three was passed after the civil war when the opposition, the insurrectionaries had been beaten literally. we're in a situation in which donald trump is enormously popular. amy, you said he trust his opposition last night. democrats have to meet that. there is a risk of violence no matter what, but do we want to have another civil war standing on some interpretation from five judges of an old document or do we want the democrats to offer a credible program for the future of america and in defend that come what may? juan: what about that argument? and also the viewpoint of some that this is an attempt to circumvent the democratic process and use lawfare as a

means of preventing candidate from coming to office? >> i don't think that this requirement is anymore antidemocratic than a number of other constitutional requirements for the presidency. we have never left that just to the voters. the constitution sets and age requirement for the presidency, have to be 35. says you have to be naturally born -- a natural born citizen. so we have never said, well, this is an immensely popular 29-year-old so we should leave it to the voters or -- the constitution also provides you can only serve two terms. if there is an immensely popular president, we have never said, we should leave this to the voters. this is a constitutional requirement. the constitution itself is a democratically enacted instrument. it was not only democratically

enacted, that it was adopted by the high thresholds that we have for constitutional provisions. it was passed by two thirds majority in the house and senate. it was ratified by three fourths of the state. we as a nation have agreed to be bound to these rules in the constitution. i don't think this is anymore anti-democratic and a number of other constitutional provisions about the requirements and qualifications for the presidency. i would also say i don't think it is in either/or proposition. where i agree with professor moyn, there's a place for other candidates and to win the public narrative strategy. i don't see that as an either/or situation. i think that has to happen but it should not be a reason for us to run away from the text and

history of this constitutional provision. amy: i also want your response to whether this applies to the president. also take that to should everyone convicted in 2021 -- and there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have been convicted for the role in the insurrection -- should they never be allowed to serve public office? >> those are good questions. i will take the first one first. the subject of our amicus brief constitutional cap ability center in the colorado case was on section three of the 14th amendment applied to the president as an officer and the presidency as an office. we looked at the text in history of this amendment, looked at the enactment history, the debates around it. we also looked at the plan the framers had for section three of the 14th amendment. it just does not make any sense

in terms of another interpretation of this provision not applying it to the president and presidency. the worries we see that the framers of this provision had that officers who had broken their oath to support the constitution would then be able to serve office again and be a destabilizing element in our democracy makes no sense for the framers to have been worried about. insurrectionist postmasters low-level officials but not concerned with the most powerful office and our lands. i would say it does apply to the president as an officer of the united states and it does apply to the presidency as an office under the united states. for your second question -- go ahead. juan: i wanted to ask you, even supposing trump was in violation of section three, wouldn't the proper remedy be to ask a

federal district court to remove him from office if you selected, not for a state official to remove him from the ballot? >> that is a great question. it is hard to see how that would be anymore more fair to voters. after they have cast ballots for somebody who is constitutionally ineligible to serve. this robs them of the choice to have voted for somebody else in the primary stage. if this is somebody who is constitutionally ineligible to serve, it is hard to see how it would be more fair to allow the election to play out and then take away their choice, as well as her option to have voted for somebody else if this had been determined earlier. i think all parties are benefited from a clear decision from the supreme court earlier rather than later. if i could backtrack i think it was amy's question about what this means -- amy cope seconds. >> participated in the insurrection, i would say

there's a narrow thing despite only officers who took out and then violated. amy: professor moyn, you say progressives should focus more on making biden -- >> franklin roosevelt said if you keep talk about saving democracy but you mean going back to the way it was, we don't follow you. these legalistic strategies all the way back to the trump presidency have really been ways of trying to put things back to the way they were rather than recognizing a lot of american people are willing to bracket trump's evil and vote for him anyway because the democrats are not appealing. that is the challenge i think we all need to face rather than side with centrist democrats and never trump republicans who just want to get rid of trump as if

nothing happened. amy: we want to thank you both for being with us. samuel moyn, we will link to your piece "the supreme court should overturn the colorado ruling unanimously." praveen fernandes is the vice president at constitutional accountability center, which filed an amicus brief in the colorado lawsuit.