donald trump is off the ballot

in colorado, now everyone's asking what will happen next. tonight on laura coates live. >> how can i put this, tonight is politically surreal. donald trump, the 45th president of the united states, the current republican front runner, campaigning right now as we speak to be reelected, hoping to sit right back down at that resolute desk while the colorado supreme court saying tonight, you are going to have to do it in 49 states because colorado is not one. why? because they say that he engaged in an insurrection on january six, and as a result they say the 14th amendment say that he is now disqualified from the ballot, and from being the president of the united states. now, here is what the 14th amendment actually says.

it says, no person shall hold any office, who have previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. sound familiar? i bet it does. because you heard this argument from some members of the january six investigative congressional committee. you heard of this in a district court trial in the state of colorado that we hear covered extensively. it was the first time that there was a real trial to determine whether donald trump had indeed engaged in an insurrection. remember, the other times we delve into this as a nation, second impeachment trial, the fulton county case, does not actually discuss insurrection, it's more of a r.i.c.o. case right. the mar-a-lago case, about classified documents. and jack smith's case, right here in washington d.c.. in that case he doesn't even charge insurrection. so, colorado was really the

first instance that we saw a trial judge, a trial judge not a jury. examine the issue with donald trump, smack dab in the center. but here's the thing. that trial judge, yes she found that he had committed insurrection. but that did not mean that he could not be on the colorado ballot. why, why that conclusion? because last month that judges said, that the insurrectionist band of that 14th amendment, did not actually apply to the presidency. now, i know you are probably thinking. if a colorado court already decided this, then why are we dealing with this yet again? because the supreme court of colorado, disagrees with that trial judge. the supreme court in colorado held tonight, that because he committed insurrection, he gets a erased from the ballot. in other, words that 14th amendment it does apply to the president, they say, wow. this is so significant. the decision of course, it was not unanimous. in fact it was 4 to 3.

three dissents, and those dissents certainly have some political tongues and, strategists wagging. the distance really make two points. what, they don't believe it's appropriate to take them off the ballot, but a criminal conviction for insurrection. and number two, and this is the point the trial judge also raised. the 14th amendment does not specifically actually name, or talk about the president of the united states. so they think, if the framers meant for it to apply to the president, they would've just said that. of course, this begs the question. would there be no dissent whatsoever if trump is in fact charge and convicted. or, with the fact that the 14th amendment does not mention the president be enough to give him a pass. now, this is not happening today. the election is still less than a year away but not right now. and this in fact, this order, does not actually go into effect until january for. now the next day, january five is when colorado is supposed to

have their ballots ready to print for the election. they do it many months in advance. of course the next, day january 6th, we all know why that date is significant. in other words, this is not the end of any of this. in fact, it will likely go from this colorado supreme court, to the, you guessed, it united states to preen court. is anyone surprised that they will in fact look at this case potentially. that same cord, that is already poised to determine whether trump is immune from prosecution because the behavior that he's alleged to have committed happened while he was actually the president. now, the campaign is already saying that they are going to swiftly file an appeal, but to be clear, all that got us here, it has been a long and winding road. trump was impeached in the house, a week before his first term was set to expire for incitement of insurrection. the january six committee referred several criminal

charges against trump to the department of justice. including, assisting or aiding an insurrection. and remember, this from liz cheney? >> no man who would behave that way, at that moment in time, can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. he is unfit for any office. >> now, look, this ruling will bring tons of questions. there is a lot of criticism already swirling all around. one of the loudest pieces of criticism is likely to be this question. and it's rhetorical. why not just leave it to the voters. well i asked congressman jamie raskin who said on the january six committee, about that very point a few weeks ago. >> the constitution is very clear on this question. and so, it would be like saying, should we have school

desegregation or not? should it be based on equal production of what's in the constitution, or should we just allow the voters to decide? and, there are some things that we commit to the constitution, and then we follow the constitution. >> that's one thing to address. one more, you're going to hear a lot of claims of election interference. in fact we're already hearing them tonight. we have been hearing them for quite some time. officials are going to find themselves trying to fend off those very accusations, including colorado secretary of state janet griswold. >> bringing a lawsuit to determine whether a potential candidate is disqualified by very clear language of the u.s. constitution, it is not election interference. it is living in a society that believes in the rule of law. having a proceeding where a judge decides if there are

questions about a constitution, or the law. the ultimate way things will go, is how american democracy should work. >> well ladies and gentlemen, of the electorate thank you've had enough? was they say buckle up buttercup's. this may be the very beginning. we will talk about this with our two panelists. i want to bring in attorneys who are here right now. bradley moss, of course. and hold on, i'm not going to bradley moss. i'm going instead to a tourney noah bookbinder, the president and ceo of the citizens responsibility of ethics in washington. the organization behind the very lawsuit. also here chris decay, for a long time republican, who is one of the plaintiffs in this case. i'm glad that you're both here with me tonight. this is very significant. i want to begin with you krista if we can. you were actually censured by your county gop for even being a part of this lawsuit. what is your reaction to the

ruling tonight? >> well, i laughed about the -- i've been a republican for probably 30 years, highly active, i ran for office myself, very committed my time and treasure has gone to that party. so this ensure was kind of a music. i'm very very happy about tonight's ruling. i know there's going to be an appeal. this is really about the rule of, law it's about the constitution. the constitution is very clear. if a person engages in the insurrection having taken oath of office to the constitution, tries then to undermine that very document by forming an insurrection is trump did on january six. that person is ineligible. and the constitution is very clear. there are five different ways in which one is eligible or ineligible. there's age, there's residency, there's if you've served two terms already, and certainly if you engaged in insurrection having taken that oath. you cannot, you absolutely

cannot run again. and i think it's clear. >> well now we'll bring you in here, because the court agrees with -- we actually spoke with the district court ruling about this very issue, that finding that they had engaged in the january six insurrection. the court in writing here, saying we concluded the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputt trial, establish the president trump engaged in insurrection. president trump's direct and expressed efforts over several months, exhorting his support to march to the capital, -- what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably, overt and voluntary. now, when you of course see these in writing, my eyes go right back to the idea of the trial. that's where people are criticizing this particular opinion. we'll hold on there saying, it wasn't a jury trial, it wasn't criminal court. does that disrupt what should have happened here? >> it doesn't. this is not about criminal

consequences. this is not to put anybody in prison. this is not to convict anybody of a. crime this is a question of, whether somebody is qualified to serve in office. just as you would look if somebody was not 35 years old. you would look at the facts, and a lot to figure out if they were qualified. and in that case, determined that they're not. obviously, this is more involved in that. that is why the trial court held a proceeding that lasted for days, with multiple witnesses, and thousands of pages of evidence. they really parse through that in a careful way, with careful representation from all sides. and made this very informed decision that, as a matter of fact and law. donald trump engaged in insurrection. if you look through that 200-page opinion that came out today, you don't really see any disputing of that piece of it. i think that's incredibly

significant. so, in the judges who have looked at this issue of whether donald trump engaged in insurrection, and really examine the evidence found that he has. that is incredibly important, and into these brave republicans and unaffiliated, like christa who got all of this going. >> now let's assume for the sake of argument that none of us have ever lied about our age for any reason whatsoever. i'm going to include myself about this. one might argue, christa, okay well in age requirement where, you've been born for example, how long you've been in residency in a particular area, these are all objective things that you could determine. an insurrection, some would look at and say, well hold on, does that not require more than a simple cursory inspection of a document? does that not require more leaning in. what is your reaction to that. you can imagine people have quite the b in their bonnet, over this particular issue.

>> well and the minority in this decision did raise some concerns about due process. and i would say that due process did occur. i attended parts of the trial and that, not the trial, well i guess it's trial, but i saw the evidence that was put forth. the other side also put forth their evidence, they were represented by some very talented lawyers. guess lauren blue or both friends of mine. they did a great job representing them, they put forth their information. if you read both of the decisions, both the trial court, as well as the colorado supreme court. very thoughtful vetting of information going through. so a due process was, done and i think it's very clear. i believe that when the u.s. supreme court looks at this, issue they look at the evidence, they look at everything, they will conclude the same thing. which is that donald trump engaged in insurrection, he is ineligible to be on that ballot.

and you have to consider that this is really about our democracy. it is about, trump involved himself in election interference. he tried to erase the votes of millions of voters. not mine, i voted for him. but millions of my fellow americans, who voted and he tried to interfere in. that and so we need to ensure that the constitution is applied, is applied as it is written, and that we do the right thing. >> noah, probably a stone's throw away from this washington d.c. bureau, there is some lock lurk in the supreme court who is beginning the research as we speak. i would bet my bottom dollar on it. that if this goes to the supreme court of the united states, do you believe that it will be held up by this court? >> look, we need to first take in this remarkable decision that came from the colorado supreme court. addressing this issue of a former president, who incited a

violent insurrection, to try to keep himself in power. and then we will see what happens when donald trump, and his people have said that they will appeal, we will see, obviously if that happens. and then what i am confident about, is that there will be a fair hearing from the u.s. supreme court. this is a supreme court, obviously that has a reputation as being conservative. but it is a supreme court that has actually taken a very hard look at potential abuses of power by donald trump, and being willing to affirm oversight, and limitations on that power. it is a court that is interested in originalism in, the language of the constitution, and the intent of the people who wrote it. and that is, the language of the 14th amendment we think, is very clear and applies to exactly the situation. so we can look at a very fair hearing if it does go to the

u.s. supreme court. and, that is appropriate for a batter like this. of really great significance to the future of this democracy. >> oh it's very significant. and the next day to watch is now january 4th, the appeal date. the idea of january 5th being when the ballots are printed supposedly. and january 6th we know why that dates important. krista, noah, thank you very much for joining us this evening. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> i want to dig more into the ruling with cnn's marshall cohen, a national security attorney bradley moss. you know marshall all begin with, you you have been following this story all along, very closely. i have so appreciated your reporting because you understood the gravitas instantly, of what the perspective result could be in colorado. when you look at this, this was not the first bite of the apple. there was a case considered in michigan, there was a case in minnesota, for example. why did those fail, and they

succeed? >> well the big difference in this colorado case is that this is the only one where the judge actually let the case go to trial. in the other states, they threw it out procedurally, on procedural grams early in the beginning of the process. the judge in colorado, had that question in front of her. trump put that question in front of her and said, throw this out it's violating my free speech, it's violating colorado state law, the constitutional disqualification can't be enforced by a, state it has to be divorced by congress. she had so many off-ramps, but she said these are very weighty questions, these are unprecedented topics. if you've ever had something like, this let's go to trial, let's hear the evidence, question witnesses both sides. there is due process. and then i will issue my decisions. and she could've said at the end of the day, that she did not even have jurisdiction. held a trial anyway, didn't have jurisdiction because they presented her compelling evidence that none of it

should've moved forward. but she wanted to see the facts, lay out the facts, and once all those facts came out they were devastating for trump, and that's what brought us to this conclusion here today. >> brad, you have been skeptical at best. you're already, smirking you're already skeptical. is that the board were using? yes skeptical at best about what transpired here. what is your take on the ruling itself? >> the ruling is very nicely done, let's get be clear. it outlines an extensive detail, it's taken five years for everybody to read this thing. the history of a procedural, issue the political question problems, issues of standings. and then in a detailed read into the substantive analysis that was done by the trial, court in terms of whether or not this met the definition of insurrection. the reason i remain skeptical, and it pains me because it's something i dislike because of donald trump. but the reason i think this seems cream court will reserves

is because of a procedural issue. it's gonna be one of two, things it's either going to be what the trial court brought up, which is the oath of office for the presidency is not the oath of office that's an issue in section three of article 14. or it's going to be a political question. that this is something handled by the political branch. congress passes laws such as those directing insurrection. the justice department processes cases. that is not happened here, this is not for us to decide in a civil context. that is the off ramp i see the supreme court. taking i don't, like that's where i think it's going to go. >> so the idea that because there was a political solution, about the impeachment and that did not result in, this in the courts may be hands off. interestingly, enough i think, can you even write in his name on this ballot? >> no you cannot. at least under colorado law, and i'm not going to claim to be an expert on all the laws of every state. but listen, in colorado there is a statement of intent form that even a write in candidate has to fill out. on that form you have to verify that you are eligible to meet

the qualifications. he cannot do that right now, as long as this ruling remains in place. marshall >> martially actual mentioned vice president mike pence in this ruling. and they were talking about him and, the reaction to it about repeatedly demanding that vice president pence refused to perform's constitutional duty -- they say that these actions constituted overt voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection. this opinion is pretty scathing marshall. >> it's strong, and the reason why they focused on that is because the constitution, which by the way, i don't think is as clear as some of those guests were trying to say it was, but the constitution says that you have to engage in insurrection in order to be disqualified. engage. so mike pence, those tweets the trump was putting out during the siege, during the riot. those are actions. the calls that he was putting into members of congress, and senators trying to prod them,

to overturn the results even while the mob was breaking the windows outside. those are actions. that is what the colorado supreme court said today, that is what engagement is and trump engaged in insurrection. it was scathing, but it all comes back to the, the original sin of this whole scenario. which is that this is unprecedented yes, but it's also unprecedented for a president to lose an election, and try to stay in power. those actions are ultimately legal conclusions. they are legal, questions they are not factual ones of what's your, age where were you born. and that comes back to this original problem of, is this for a civil action to be addressing, to be determined in a civil context. or is this the purview of the justice department, through laws set forced by congress. that's what's going to be decided by the supreme court. >> marshall, bradley, both thank you very much. i'm wondering based on this conversation, what the political implications are going to be. how significant is colorado in the overall discussion about trump's 2024 chances.

we'll make will it make a difference, we'll ask harry hendon next. ♪ ♪ ♪

so the question on everyone's mind tonight. what does the colorado supreme court ballot removal really mean for trump. and his chances at the 2024 election. let's go right now to cnn senior data reporter harry enten. he joins us now from that magical magical wall. harry, i have been waiting to talk to you. i want to take a step back though for a second. i want people to understand what a path to victory for trump was like in 2016. to really understand the significance of colorado here. remind us, what was his path back in 2016. >> yes laura, if we look at the

2016 election, the electoral votes that end up in the electoral college. trump 304 to clinton 227. the key pathway that donald trump was able to put forth to win the election, was winning in those key great lakes battleground states. pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin. all those covered in red there. but guess what's covered in blue. you go out west, to the mountain west you go to colorado. donald trump did not need to win colorado to win in 2016. he lost, in fact every republican has lost the state of colorado going back to 2000. at the last republican to carry the state of colorado was george w. bush in 2004. so you don't have to be a republican to win colorado in order to win the electoral college. >> that's really important for people to understand. a lot of people have been really reacting to the idea of him not being on the ballot. electoral college votes of course come to mind, and where this fifth in 2016. but of course in 2023, were less than a year away from the 2024 election. how about colorado this time

around? >> yeah what about colorado this time around. before this decision came down, pretty much all of the experts believe that it was going to go democratic. solid biden, -- and say for biden according to -- so to be honest, it doesn't really change very much. of course biden won it last time around by 13.5 points in 2020. >> so does that mean that he's in bad shape for 2024? it doesn't sound like according to the other. polls >> exactly right. if we essentially look at donald trump's electoral votes. 270 needed to win. look at the states he won in 2020. that gets you to 2:35. the states he lost but now leads in. gets you to 67 potential 2024 total get this, 302. you only need 270 to win. the states he leads a now that he lost in 2020 include arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, pennsylvania. colorado not included in that. at this point trump does have a clear path to victory. >> interestingly enough, one of the big questions on everyone's mind tonight is based on this

ruling. will other states follow suit, and how might they rule, when looking at the map that you just showed us. about the prospect of him not being on maybe a state ballast where did make a difference to him. that's really consequential here. i want to know how voters generally are feeling about his actions on january 6th. it's going to have a huge impact on how people view this decision. >> yes, you know is trump guilty of subverting the 2020 election? the majority of americans, 51% say yes. only 26% say no. but, there is this large portion 22% unsure. if you add these two together, you get a very close sort of 50/50 split here. so i think the sort of response to this verdict may be very split. americans on donald trump very split. they have been since the beginning. we are going to have an interesting jury selection inseams. and a jury verdict in all of these cases going forward in fulton, county in a in washington d.c., and anywhere else at my pop-up. harry enten, always a pleasure thank you very.

much >> thank you. >> so what do voters think. cnn's lucy kavanaugh spoke to some colorado voters tonight. >> i mean that's great he's a cook, so good riddance. >> i think what i cannot decide who i'm going to vote for. so because it's my own decision, it's not the courts decision who i'm voting for. >> i think it's super beneficial, i think during donald trump's presidency there was a lot of dangerous rhetoric used really armed americans against each. other i think working to prevent something from that to happen again is beneficial for all americans. >> let's talk about this with republican strategist michael singh colton and -- ashley allison, who's head of the national for the biden harris 2020 presidential campaign. i'm going to bring begin with you here shermichael. it's quite a night i'm not sure everyone had this on their bingo card. after the lower court said, yes an insurrection maybe, yes, you're off the ballot, no. how is this going to play with

republican voters? >> let me look actually and i were talking about, this we saw speaker johnson's comments. saying every american should be outraged by this. i received multiple text messages from individuals actively gauged in colorado. across the country and republican strategists. and they all said, those who like trump, in those who dislike trump this is not the way. you should not remove voters ability to choose the candidate that they. like electorally, and you saw -- talk about this. this is not going to change the electoral map for biden, or for trump for that matter. trump did not win colorado in 2016, he did not win in colorado in 2020, and he's not going to win it in 2024. so why do? this you further the argument that trump will make, and some republicans will, make that you are trying to disenfranchise republican voters from choosing the candidate of their choice. >> what about the argument that suggests, and i don't take it lightly when we talk about voters ability to elect a candidate of their choosing. but we do have criteria.

so i couldn't just, and you couldn't just nominate a 16 year old, even if you wanted to. you couldn't nominate someone who didn't meet the qualifications of the presidency because you felt. like it that would not be disenfranchisement. so the argument has been suggested that it is not disenfranchising if there was never a criteria for you to be president in the first. places that enough to satisfy voters? >> look, i think that we also what happened on january, six we all know who was the person that told people to come to washington d.c.. to have an insurrection on our capital and overthrow the election results. and that was donald trump. >> it well it's going to be wild was his words. >> yes but when the folks got, there there were other inflammatory language that was used, from other speakers that the election results were not valid, and that they should go to the capital. and that instruction ended up with people dying, with threats very dangerous language, and our country being extremely divided. so people who are part of the

insurrection, our constitution says that they cannot run for president. i will say, i do not think that this is the way democrats want beat down ultra. i think that there is enough evidence on the type of policies that he, has even his most recent disgusting, racist, antisemitic language. as well as his intention to overthrow the election, it is enough to disqualify voters from voting for. him unfortunately, many folks in your party are not disqualifying him and are still supporting him which is why he is the front runner. but i hear, from michael's point, and i'm not sure that it's the way that you want to beat donald. trump i think you want to beat him on the merits. but also i kind of say, for nikki haley. she was the center of attention, getting all of this surge momentum, and now no one's even talking about her because, donald trump once again takes all of the oxygen out of the room and the focus goes back to. on >> him hold on, now she's talking about him. nikki haley actually, well let's just play what chris

christie and nikki haley are both saying tonight about all of this. >> i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by any court. i think that he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters of this country. >> i want to see this in the hands of the voters. we are going to win this the right way, we are going to do what we need to do. the last thing we want is for judges to tell us who can and cannot be on the ballot. >> even if it would help, or even if it would help chris christie. and they are obviously lagging behind him as a strong front runner. >> substantially. >> but even then, there is a concern about how this will be viewed widely. >> i don't think this is really a political question for haley, or kristie. and kristie is a phenomenal attorney. you are a great attorney laura, you know this very well. i think this really is a philosophical belief about the rule of government. when you look at the judicial system, should the judicial system make a decision for the vote? or should that remain

ultimately, with every single individual in colorado. i think it should, and i think most democrats would agree with, that even those who dislike donald trump. for those of the who say, this could help him. win well he didn't win in 2020, he lost fair and square, joe biden is the president. there's no guarantee that he would win in 2024. so why restrict voter's ability to make that decision? allow them to hear from both, parties from both camps, from both candidates, and let them decide, and judge on their own recognizance, who should be the person to lead the country forward. >> can i just say one quick thing, i also worry what this does to enrage his base even more. when the election results of 2020 were valid, and yet we still had an insurrection. if he's removed from the ballot, what type of violence or greater animosity comes from that? 35 45% of the republican base that really believe in trump, and really want trump does. that help our democracy. or hurricane block russi. i'm curious to see how that plays out and what his language

does. two -- >> he's going to say they're trying to remove me from the ballot, they don't want me to be the president, there democrats, it's a deep state, look at what they've done in colorado. you can imagine this is going to occur in other places, it's going to further and further distrust in our. process >> what we'll see what happens. stick around because when we come back, you see ashley allison and our and outfits match perfectly. she's coming back next to trump doubled down, now he's tripling down. former president donald trump repeating his anti immigrant rhetetoric againin tonight, , at invovolves kids thisis time.

i was born ten weeks early without my left arm. with my polio, i have tough days and my pain just pops out, out of nowhere. there's nothing to be afraid of because all the doctors are all so nice. when somebody sees these commercials there'll be a phone number on a screen and all they have to do is call and make a donation to help kids like me. thanks to a generous donor, every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. when you join with us, we'll send you one of these adorable blankets as a thank you and reminder of all the abilities you are helping make possible. merry christmas!

please call the number on your screen and give just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day or whatever you can to help kids like us this christmas. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact. it's crazy what's going on. they are ruining our country. and it is true. they are destroying the blood of our country. that is what they are doing. they are destroying our country. they don't like it when i said. that and i never read mein kampf. they said oh hitler said that in a much different way. >> former president donald trump holding nothin the hitler comparisons over his anti immigration rhetoric. -- and ios in the back with me now. i don't know that it's going to be a great play to say, well i

said it differently, a different way than hitler. it doesn't really ring is great, and it's kind of an unnecessary self inflicted wound. >> yeah i mean look, unless you're in the halls of the academy and you're discussing history, or were you discussing political thought, political theory. then i suppose those conversations can be had there. but i don't think it's wise for a major candidate of the political party to be making comparisons, or using statements that hitler, one of the most horrible people that we have ever seen in leadership. one of the most horrendous people that we've seen in leadership. killed millions of people, by the way. a guy where we see today in this country, many groups, many extremist groups in eastern europe hold this kind of like a god-like figure. and in the united states, with all of our difficulties in the past, a very diverse country today. you have a leading figure quoting him, or misquoting him, however you want to put it. i don't think it's wise.

but i will say this is why i think this resonates. you think about identity, you think about nationalism right. you think about a particular type of, people from a particular type of place, observing a particular type of values, belief systems, customs, behavior. you think about hateful in german idealism. you think about emanuel khan, who also wrote about identity and nationalism. you think about russo. so you can understand how these people who have been used to being the majority, view these other folks coming into the country. they are changing these customs, they are changing the ideals about themselves, about the surrounding environment. and then here is trump, further inflaming that in my opinion, that's very very dangerous. >> do you think that he's given too much credit? >> that sir michael is getting trump too much? credit. i don't know if trump is read mein kampf or not. i do know when not seas were marching in the streets of charlottesville with swastikas saying will not replace us, he thought they were good people on that side.

so, today when he says similar rhetoric, that hitler has said. or when he says words like vermin, maybe you don't have to read the book to have the hate in your heart. and you have to have policies that really allow for you to call immigrants, and call african countries the most heinous things. and we've seen it in his policies when he was president for four years. and now he is re-committing to that ideology. and -- >> i don't to interrupt you when you're talking about, this but both of you. it's not hurting him among voters. his voters. these statements. it's also not when democrats talk about, it and vilify the statements he's making, they're not getting any traction from identifying what they see is wrong. >> well i agree. and that's the problem that, there are people in this country who are still really

wanting donald trump to be president, even though he says these things. i think we have to realize that, after a barack obama, we don't live in a post racial society, after a george floyd of 2020, we didn't really have the racial reckoning that everyone. thought because we still have the republican front runner, who can say those things that are rooted in so much hate. on the democratic, side i will just say. i don't think that comparison right now is who the democratic candidates, or who donald trump is. when that argument, comes i think it will get some traction, and people will discuss. and i think communities that are attacked by donald trump are acutely aware of his threat. the comparison is why you might see in joe biden's poll numbers. it's not about donald trump, it's actually about what joe biden is doing for them. so i think the comparison -- is >> i don't think it's only the majority population that's experiencing this crisis of identity. i would argue that, even within the minority communities there is going to be some discord it some point about which community is the largest. which community has the greater

political power. that is also going to be a crisis of identity, where at some point i would predict, you are going to see conflict. i think about what happened in los angeles a couple months ago. you had the latino leaders use some very racial phrases to describe african americans, and african american political leaders. this is not just something that is encapsulated with the white population. i think this is only going to get worse. >> but we're gonna talk later about this in the, break i want to hear more about this as well same time. but now i've got to go to break and discuss -- next with michael actually thank you so much. we're coming right back. lava is spewing from a volcano in iceland, as officials are warning more events could still open up. cnn is on the ground, we are going to get to the peperson on the grground rightht by the eruptionon. next

fall tons of lava are setting the night sky a glow in southwest iceland tonight. the eruption splitting a hole in the earth get this, roughly two miles long. cnn's fred pleitgen getting as closest safely possible tonight. fred, what are you seeing?

>> i laurence and massive volcanic eruption is taken place in the south of iceland. it started late last night and it happening along a fissure a crack in the ground it's about two and a half miles long. in the early stages of that corruption you just saw magma spewing from that large crack really dozens of feet in the air. also it was a lava flow of us happening as well, laterally moving away from that. spectacle a lot of people were seeing. we also saw the s landed coast guard flying missions around. we want to see if there were any people out there. this is an extremely concerning situation for the authorities here. according to this area of a long time ago. this is a city close to where the eruption took place is called grindavik, as a inhabitants of 4000 people, it was evacuated quite a while ago,

we were able to fly over that area few weeks ago there already cracks in the area. as of now, the authorities say they don't believe anybody was injured, they don't believe right now that anybody is in danger. but if you look at that eruption, there's not that much ash spewing into air that could be an issue for air travel. they say that there are toxic gases that are being released. the capital of iceland is close to here as well. this is a major eruption in this part of iceland and the authorities say they are not sure when it is going to end. laura? >> fred pleitgen thank you very much. they say one day you are opening up photos you picked up in the local pharmacy but it's not exactly what you would expect. is this tom brady and his kids? for cbs photo mix-up is next.

a photo mix-up involving nfl legend tom brady, a mother of a san francisco 49ers player was picking up a family photo at the cbs in the bay area. when she got home, she open up the photos realize they were pictures of tom brady and his family instead. the family was expecting a family that we'll, looked like this. but instead got this of tom brady in his kids from the patriots first game of the season. daughter share the next up on tiktok and of course it went viral, and the super bowl champ himself commented writing, my

mom must be printing some photos in san francisco. my team spoke to the tang's family back, skeena-bulkley get the family back to tom. but if they don't to happen, may keep as a memory. thank you for watching, our coverage continues.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this,