it's a cold in the us state of colorado has ruled, and mr. trump is not an eligible candidate to run for president in that state because he'd engaged in insurrection, citing the january 6 riots in the us capital. reaching after the ruling, mr. trump said he considers a diamonds, i guys have a great badge of on a really i'm feel go in by then, and this is the day the we're very pleased with the outcome. i think it's a correct outcome. they are literally trying to take away people's choices from election. it is a roadmap in how to address this problem which is novel in american history. we've never had an insurrection as president before. every time the radical up democrats boxes comment is some fashion, some dice made. i consider it a great badge of honor. i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from

being pressed the united states by any port. air voters got a fair shake and for just like donald trump did, and that's what makes america so also on the day after years of division, a you countries have agreed to implement significantly stronger procedures for people, timing, assign them. they just calling it's a landmark of a whole, but refugee advocates say it's a doc day that will cost lives, or the people seeking protection in europe will fit face much kasha and restrictive regime. many of them will be in situations that are similar to what we see now on the greek islands, which people in detention or diffract towed detention on, subject to a very poor asylum procedures. so maybe with no access to asylum procedures, a tool owing to the de donald trump's

a bit to win back the why passes under threats again from a ruling a by the state of colorado's top cause it's blocked the form, the president from the states ballot. next year, because of his role in the attack on the russ capital in 2021. the court did so under an insurrection close in the us constitution. it's the 1st time the provision has ever been used to prohibit someone from running for the presidency. the us supreme court is likely to have the final say over why the ruling can stand. so here's a section of the court said ruling president, trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 because he's disqualified, would be a wrongful act, under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary balance. they went on to say, we do not reach these conclusions like they were all mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions. not before us. likewise mindful of solemn duty to apply

the law without fear or favor without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions about the little mandates we beach spokesman. so mr. trump describes, the colorado rooting is on democratic on the side. they would appeal that the trump himself made no direct dimensions on it. when he took the stage afterwards as a rally in iowa, then he use the opinions to attack is successful as president. it is no wonder cook joe biden, and the far left lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. they are willing to violate the us constitutions at levels never seen before in order to win the selection. jo bite is a threat to democracy, to threat their weapon. isaac law enforcement for high level election interference because we're meeting them so badly in the balls the case. against that mr. trump was brought by a group of color. other voters, aided by the advocacy group, citizens for responsibility,

and ethics in washington is the lawyer. but we're thrilled that the court did a careful and thorough review of the trial court's proceedings. and we're very pleased with the outcome and we think it's a correct outcome and we're grateful to the members of the call supreme court for taking this issue with such care that's on the part list. repeat the report, sir william blue cross to focus is on us politics as well as defense and security. welcome, william. so why did this case come from? who brought it? it's a fascinating chain of events. uh, the actual organization is an ethics advocacy group base in washington, basically uh, you know, a sort of lobby group in a sense that, that advocate supports ethics and politics. if that's not a contradiction in terms, at least. but the actual plaintiffs that they were representing were a handful of republican voters and unintimidated voters in colorado. um, so the charge from the trumpet team that the system have some democratic conspiracy?

yes, colorado is a democratic state. yes. the supreme court in colorado has been appointed by the 6th. the 7 members appointed by democratic governors. yes. the ethics and responsibility advocacy groups probably lean more towards bite and then trump. but the plaintiff themselves bring in this case, are republicans in order to leave the voters whose voting patterns are, of course, are known to us officially anyway. suffice and what does a lot of them, why, why have republicans bringing a big cases against the republican front runner? what are so a few republicans i can, i can surmise that might not be so thrilled with donald trump and we'd like to see him off the ballot in 2024. remember, what's happening in colorado is actually happening in something like 20 states across the united states. where there's this question, can donald trump be legally allowed to be on the ballot in the states river states in the united states run the elections. they set the rules, of course,

is federal law. these are federal elections. but as the actual states themselves that come up with the specific ways in which the elections in their state get run. so that's why these cases are 1st coming up like in colorado through the state courts are. right. so ton, donald trump then become president of the united states. if one of those united states as disqualified in from running. so she can for sure um the colorado would probably be, they'd probably go for by them. anyway. it's a generally democratic state. so trump, whether he's on the valid or not likely would lose their questionnaires. and then there's nothing, of course preventing trump or any candidate from winning a, you know, a number of states. we see this is the problem with 3rd party candidates. for example, united states. well, isn't why you can't get a 3rd party president in united states because it's very hard for that candidate to get enough supports in all of the states to be on the ballot each of the 50 states . but you don't need all 50 or something bar and you specifically are from

presidency. if you can't get on a state or 2 or 3 or 5, it's really just a numbers game. the real question here is, if the us supreme court upholds this ruling for colorado, that would allow other states to move ahead by banning striking donald trump for legal reasons, from their ballots 1st. and the primaries within the republican party and then of the general election against who we presume i'll be jo by them, the democratic candidate. so we have to see what's going to happen now between this report and the various state courts that are, that are waiting. these decisions, right, so the 2 things come out of that that well, 1st of all, the supreme court has to say, yes, we will look at this case. and of course, it was a narrow decision. anyway, a from the colorado judges. yes, that is correct. a lot of these cases that are sneaking their way through state courts about whether trump should even be allowed to be on the ballot due to his

affiliation with the january 6th insurrection. come down to the very tactical legal terms. does the word officer, an officer of the united states? does that apply to the president? do the founders and the people behind the 14th amendment actors, sorry, another founder is, is a after the civil war, excuse me. after the civil war, when the 14th amendment was passed, were they thinking about the president when they talked about the officer? also the different from the primaries and the general election. some judges, not, not, not in colorado, but the judges elsewhere in the united states, dealing with the same question. i have said, well, the primary is an internal decision within the republican party. it's not a political decision for the whole country, so we don't have jurisdiction here. and so a similar technical reason came down for the dissenting of you in colorado saying, donald trump is not actually been convicted of anything yet. we can't say if he's guilty of insurrection, therefore we can't keep them off the ballot for insurrection. because that is a violation of his due process. that was the minority. they weren't saying that he

didn't do anything wrong. they're saying, we don't know if he did anything wrong. it's not our place to say. so if there's been a conviction in any of these number of other cases that are pending against donald trump said these defending judges would very likely side with the majority and say ok. now dallas has been convicted of a crime that crime meets the standard the 14th amendment. he can't be on the ballot, but we're just not there yet. according to the dissenting vote in this colorado ruling. okay, so actually, well then about what mr. trump's republican supports as the se or the will. this is an interesting a revel. uh, you know, radios are very interesting uh, tension in the republican part of it. how much donald trump has his hold over the republican party because even his opponents, the ones that would like for you right away to defeat him and be president. although some might say that they're really just buying for a vice presidency slot in a donald trump, canada city. they're saying we, you know, we want to beat him, you know, nikki haley, for example,

the former south carolina governor and, and of a sudden a recent almost front runner, 2nd to donald trump, very far behind donald trump. but getting a lot of press right now, she said, you know, i want to be done with trump. well, i want to beat him, stare, and square. i don't want a court to decide. i want american voters to decide. so even are comes opponents in the republican candidate field are, are basically saying, coming out also against this ruling, a colorado saying we want voters to decide. we don't want courts to decide thanks a lot. when william green cross your paying union has agreed sweeping reforms to the blocks asylum system. after nearly 10 years of rounding, member states have not reached consensus on new rules to come in. regular migration, governments and officials type of changes will cut the growing numbers of arrivals while respecting human rights. but charities and agencies that help migrants have condemned to changes as restrictive and dangerous the past almost

a decade of the bait and division. the european union has reached a deal to reform its migration routes. i know exactly how what it means when we say that we have finally delivered on the migration and assign them back. it's probably of the most important important legislative deed of this mandates. the planned reform include speedy of vetting off in regular arrivals. new board detention centers for migrants less likely to be granted asylum, and sophisticated protection for people whose claims that rejected the block also plans more even distribution of asylum seekers among member states. countries refusing to take people in we'll have to make a financial contribution. instead. catherine gulard, expert and migration policy called this a doc day for europe. the people say king protection in europe will face face much

hall, sure. and restrictive regime. many of them will be in situations that are similar to what we see now on the greek islands, which people in detention or diffract towed detention on, subject to a very poor asylum procedures. so maybe with no access to asylum procedures, a told she thinks the peck significantly undermines the ride to asylum. but brussels insist this is a breakthrough. this isn't a very important officer to, to us citizens that have been waiting for this officer. we need to manage migration orderly, and we need to be able to do that. we have to do it together. no member states can do it alone. the u member states in parliament will still have to formally rectify the reforms and they're not going to take effect immediately. i will talk to

mike cody bowers, the migration expert and director of advocacy and policy at save the children. jim, welcome to dw, i was looking at the site for children, a web site today, i saw that it's a condemn these proposal saying that they will, i'm closing here. it will lead to late sent violations of children's rights in danger. children on the move i'm the to for the separation of migrant family. so let's picture a couple of those. how will they lead to the plates and the violation of children's rights to thank you so much for the invitation and the opportunity to discuss these reforms today. yes, we are actually a while we have you seen this coming for a long time and we are very concerned about what has been decided stay in brussel would we are mostly concerned about in this bass mass of new

regulations. and that has been decided today is the fact that now all children, no matter their age, will be part of the so called order procedures. which means that they will be part of the attention like conditions. and this was some and something. and if we were trying to avoid up to the last minute and it was actually usually debated, but in the end, unfortunately, i could not pre be preventative. as we said, the children we were both on the camry islands but also in the back cause. and in other regions, as in the great islands, and what we're seeing there when children are subjected to these detention by my conditions is that these are very helpful for these children. they have long lasting effects even if these conditions will only last for a couple of weeks. that were 3 off of here as well. the european union speaks of 12

weeks uh, border procedures as most refilled. this is actually in reality, something to come out the whole and brought problems there. let me just jump into that, just because i did ask you specifically about the claims made on your website. i haven't heard you yet say how, where these proposals will lead to the plates and violation of children's rights. so let's say that so in the u. n. u n c r c these you have a child reads convention. it says that the tension isn't never in the best interest of a child. and of course, when we talk about residues and migraines, the children's obviously also enjoy the same rights as to all other children. so not the, not the best interest of the child, but not a blatant violation of children's rights. you also mentioned that the,

the 12 weeks, the, the, the, the hoped full maximum 12 weeks that but children might be kept under basic conditions. would that be best uh, about 12 weeks if i actually, if they would that be better or worse than the conditions that are often found in these ad detention comes in in greece and easily is what the european union um is envisioning right now. we're in any way practicable. um it was to come to them so it will come to that. but so, so 12 weeks, if i could achieve that, would that be best? so was the washstand. now it's, it's, it wouldn't be worse by heart because the forget, right? right, so just because it's important, so just follow your logic through your site and look at the moment when, when children come here through at least below the regular route, they are processed within 12 weeks. and so it's putting the 12 weeks thinking on it

would make this was it's not what you say to know that's what we're saying. so basically these 12 weeks are fiction and these are, that doesn't exist, i presume. right, exactly. so this is basically what point really you're say, but you've told somebody being a blatant violation of childers. i haven't heard of that yet. you've said that everything will be worth it hasn't happened yet, but whatever is proposed, if it happens, you will agree. but if it happens and i, i take it, once you, you, you're set about quoting into fiction with an 8th grade happened. it would be back to the what's that in the house amongst the changes that is that it's has been proposed today, free legal advice to people on the going to face the do you have a problem with that? to know the free legal advice is actually one of the very few wins that is in there

. however, we are very concerned that this is also even, that is not very feasible in practice because, but we're, um, what we are about to see is that these children will be and something and the basic weaknesses as a legal point. and, and right now in, if we look at degree islands, are also the camry islands legal counseling and the access to uh, to lawyers and, and to advisory groups. it's very hard to obtain for capacity reasons, but also because uh, these facilities are so sealed off that the access is really hard to obtain for the groups of now. and this is a systematic problem that will consist of consistently be there and also be being

increasing problem for everyone as part of these procedures. bro. okay, what would have been top of your list of asks for what you would re, god as a fair and just system won't say what would have been top of the list or so i will say 3 things. why don't we wanted the exclusion of all children of these border procedures to we were also very much hoping for a fair distribution system within the european union that would allow for the states. like if we entries to not be the ones that are burdened with the majority of the asylum axis, just as they are now. because we also know and has been seeing this, if this is a major burden for these states, and this needs to change the need of parent distribution within the year in utah.

okay. on the pose, i'm will live at the eye. doctor, thank you so much for joining us. talk to mike. re about from safe for children. jim. thank you so much. i the, there were 10 scenes at poland public broadcast that today as the new pro e u. government faced the 1st test if it's pledged to restore a freedom of expression, the state making the police had to be called a when will make cause of the populace bull. and just as body stage, the statement that countries, p, v, p. public broadcaster is after the new government stock, the heads of t. v. p. unfold is rating the injustice. let the previous government was critic. sab had use public medias propaganda tools. on tuesday. postponements authorized the resolution to restore legal order objectivity unfair this in public media of the former prime minister from the injustice of potty joined the protest and said this, talk to you is that again, such an intrusion,

a forcible intrusion into the public television of tardies is an absolute active lawlessness. do you want to have all the information provided according to one template? according to the template prepaid in the office of prime minister tuesday? i think that polls does a reliable information information showing from different sites. next to a mazda and separate off ski as policy director of a future of security program at the think tank. globe 2nd welcome to dw johns us for both. so i'm so let's start with those comments. said from the former prime minister imitation motor. that's k q as in donald telescope, talking press freedom. what do you make of those? well that's, that's, that's the i on the alternatives. and then, you know, the situation as it is, was created to about 8 years ago when law injustice purple is bar to but you've

been referring to a new program to goals or want to be election to go over government and then subsequently change a system of public media and poland, which is still occupies quite a sizable share of the market, about 30 to 40 percent. so this is still quite an important part of a media landscape in the country. so when they took over 8 years ago, we decided to abandon the whole system of i buy parties um uh, a commissions which were upon team the heads of the, of public media. and instead they made it into the system of direct supervision from the government. so what was public became governmental and then in the fact that meant, but the system was, you know, they probably television so called probably television. the last 8 years was a to of pro government propaganda right now, when the new government comes in and wants to change the system back into the

public media, they being accused of destroying the media freedoms and destroying the media poorly to okay, so that's, that's the i only of dealing with popular is really all right, so just the battery a week and, and so he's, he's new to a donald task. it sounds like he's got a face and serious opposition as he tries to in his words, the politicize of poland, public and media. uh yes, uh, the deal position will be will be thursday. but as i said, uh, you know, probably media still occupies verifies, of. ready portion of market, the new media landscape in the country and it was an essential tool. all the propaganda of law and justice government and one of the major reasons for a success and benz thing in power point 2 terms, right. and they still actually came as the most as the strongest party out of the

last election. they fell short of having the majority, but we still perform very well. and throughout all the years, you'd hear the tools, the kinds prime minister is the germans agent. yep. and it's a little bit on the german sentiments being right eric, on. but the vision, you hear a lot of the, your skeptic propaganda. so there's a lot of times i'm, you ever forget me. i just, i do want to try and get a couple of other things here before we have to wrap it up. and the next target that donald to us got has any sites as pollings, judiciary, now, all around the world, whichever way you go, you start talking about reforming the judiciary of people just sort of throw their hands up in the heart of what should we expect? i think there's going to be a all right, i mean there's going to be a very tough one. is going to be super tough one because the beauty of the, i'd throw the 8 years of law and just as government, the traditional,

the principle of do this for independence was destroyed because situational court was stopped with both to go there appointees. and the same thing with a supreme court and the system of disciplining of the judges was also deeply politicized. and now if you come in as a liberal motor reduction, how do sounds reforming good without being accused? but you are politicizing again, right? well, it's out of us, we will, we will talk about this again, i'm not saying, but for now, believe it that you've given us a taste of what we can expect and donald, that to a 6 to thank you so much for joining us. mazda and separate allstate from globe sag it's to and that's, it's a more online ads ad d w, and used to have the,

let's talk about 1000000000 met all the celebrations on one says it depends on where you are in europe. doesn't last have been v m, as most trust in the us and india admiration. why our opinions so different? and we'll see exactly influences officer to, to, to what well made in germany next on d w. and during the conflict with tim sebastian as we have so many african

conflicts, the latest fighting into down the road, death, misery, to huge numbers of civilians. whatever happens after cause long enough promise to silence the guns. mo, abraham 6 ounces. so such a question that at the corner of africa's problems he says is 5 government. but why is it still so prevalent? conflict the same 60 minutes on dw the continental to see how to use the highlights you every week in your inbox. subscribe. now my name is the calls back said wow, thank you so much for joining in. welcome to don't hold bad. a lot of people do

that. as soon as i was saying it loud, things would have been, you know, say like good everyone to ok. mark prefer, i'm sorry. check out the award winning outcome. don't hold back the how serious is the business world when it comes to sustainability? protecting the climate. it's easy to talk green after all, but walking the walk has proven much more difficult. what about families and households, the affluence and the poor? what are their responsibilities when it comes to the environment? green economies and a division between rich.