it's called in the us state of colorado, his rule that mr. trump is not an eligible candidate to run for president in that state. because eating gaged in insurrection, citing the january 6th riots in the us capital. reasoning after the ruling, mr. trump said he considered as a diamonds guys to a great badge of on a really, i'm feel go in funding and this is the day the we're very pleased with the outcome. think it's the correct outcome. they are literally trying to take away people's choices from election. it is a road map and how to address this problem, what you've novels in american history. you've never had an insurrection as president before. every time the radical up democrats boxes comment is some fashion, some dice may i consider it a great badge of honor? i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being press the united

states by any port air voters got a fair shake and for just like donald frontier. 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 say king protection in europe will fit face a much, tasha, and restrictive regime. many of them will be in situations that are similar to what we see now on the greek islands. we've people in detention or diffract towed detention on, subject to very polar asylum procedures. so maybe with no access to asylum procedures, a toll on to the day donald trump's

a bit to win back the wife has is under threats again from the ruling a by the state of colorado's top cause it's blocked. the form of president from the states bought it next year because of his role in the attack on the russ capital in 2021. the court did so under an insurrection closing 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 whether 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. it would be a wrongful act, under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidates on the presidential primary about us. it went on to say, we do not reach these conclusions like they were all mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. likewise mindful of a solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by

public reaction to the decisions about the little mandates we beach spokesman phone . mr. trump describes, the colorado rooting is on democratic and that said they would appeal that the trump himself made no direct dimensions on it when he took the stage afterwards as a rally in iowa. and he used the appearance to attack his successor 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 this election. joe bite is a threat to democracy. so a threat there 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 is ruled by a group of colorado 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 when 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 up here before 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 advocates for 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. 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. that's why i want to say, well then 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, it was 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 election. 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 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 or she can for sure. um, the colorado would probably be, they'd probably go for bite in any way. it's a generally democratic state. so trump, whether he's on the valid or not likely with lose the question is, 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, because of why you can't get a 3rd party president in united states because it's very hard for that candidate to get enough support in all of the states to be on the ballot in each of the 50 states. but you don't need all safety 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 with a general election against who we presume i'll be jo by them, the democratic candidate. so we have to see what's gonna happen now between this report and the various state courts that are, that are weighing 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 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 of and the people behind the 14th amendment after starting out the founders as a, after the civil war, excuse me, after the civil war, when the 14th amount amendment was passed where 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 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 view 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, then these descending 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 well then about what mr. trump's republican support has to say, or the will, this is an interesting a revel. uh, you know, radios are very interesting uh, tension and the republican party about 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 candidacy. 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 terms, opponents in the republican candidate field are, are basically saying, coming out also against this ruling and colorado saying, we want voters to decide we don't want courts to decide thanks a lot. when william blue cross you are paying union has agreed sweeping reforms to the blocks asylum system. after nearly 10 years of rounding, member states of my reach consensus on new rules to come in regular migration, governments and officials side, the changes will cut the growing numbers of arrivals while respecting human rights . but charities and agencies that help migrants have condemned the changes 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 what it means when we say that we have finally delivered to on the migration. and as i look back, it's probably a the most important important legislative dean of this mandates. the planned reform include speedy or vetting or irregular arrivals. new board of 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 and you're at poor feet, face

a much harsher 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 to diffract to attention 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 use 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. to hold off to

mike cody bowers, a migration expert and director of advocacy and policy at save the children. jeremy, welcome to dw, i was looking at the site for children, a web site today i saw that its 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 violation of children's rights to thank you so much for the invitation and the opportunity to discuss these reforms today. yes, um we are actually uh while we have you seen this coming for a long time and we are very concerned about what has been decided to stay in brussel. um we are mostly concerned about in this bass

mass of new revelations. and that has been decided today is the fact that no, 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 south and something that we were trying to avoid until 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 harmful 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 of border procedures as most repealed. this is actually in reality a something then come out a cold and brought commentary. let me just jump in there just because i do ask you specifically about the claims made on your website. i haven't heard you yet say, how aware these proposals will lead to the plates and finalization of children's rights. so let's say about so in the u. n. u n. c r z. these, you have a child reads convention, it's a bad tension, isn't never in the best interest of a child. and of course, when we talk about the record using migraines, these children 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 in violation of children's rights. you. you also mentioned that the,

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

wouldn't make. this was, it's not what you'll 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 it's right the softly. so this is basically my point, really, you're say, but you've told somebody being a blatant violation of childers like, haven't heard about 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 happened, and i, i take it once you, you, you said about quoting to fiction, but if it happened, it would be back to the what's that in the house amongst the changes that is that it has been proposed today, free legal advice to, to people on the garden to face the do you have a problem with that? i 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 facilities that will basically consist as a legal point. and, and right now in, if we look at the 3 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, a problem that will consist of consistently be there and also be being an

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 one 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 lee and trees 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, 40 states and this needs to change the need of parent distribution within the

european union. okay. on the east coast, 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 there were 10 scenes at poland public broadcast it today as a new pro, a u government faced the 1st test of its pledge to restore a freedom of expression. the state making the police had to be called a little made because of the populace. more unjust is body stage. the states in the countries p. b. p. public broadcaster was that the new government sacked, the heads of t, v, p, and photos radio. the injustice left 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 phone, the prime minister from the injustice of potty joined the process and said this is

such an intrusion, a forcible intrusion into the public television. all authorities is an absolute active lawlessness. so you want to have all the information provided according to one template. so, 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. on a mazda and separate off screen is policy director of a future of security program at the think tank. globe sack a welcome cdw, the jobs estimable. so i'm so let's start with those comments. said from the former prime minister imitation motiv etzky q. as in donald task of attacking, press freedom, what do you make of those to? well, that's, that's, that's the i on the, i'll do this. and then it will be situation as it is, was created to about 8 years ago when law unjust is very popular as 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 in poland, which is still occupies quite a sizable share of the market about 30 to 40 percent. so this is through 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 behead 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 publish television so called probably television. the last 8 years was a tool of pro government propaganda. right now, when the new government comes in and wants to change the system back into the

public, a 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 public is really all right, so just the battery a week and, and so he's, he's new to donald tours. it sounds like he's got a face and serious opposition as he tries to in his words, the politicize of poland, public media. yes, the position will be, will be very steep. as i said, public media still occupies very size of. ready portion of market, the need media landscape in the country and it was an essential tool of the propaganda of law. and just as government and one of the major reasons for his success and better staying in power for 2 terms. right. and they still actually

came is the most is the strongest party i little bit last selection. they fell short of having the majority, but we stood performed very well. and throughout all the years you'd hear the tools, the kinds prime minister is a german agent. yeah. the, it's a little bit on the german sentiments being right. i aired on, but the vision, you hear a lot of a, your skeptic propaganda. so on time, tell me 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 is pollings, judiciary. now, all around the world, whichever way you go, your thoughts talking about re folding, the judiciary of people just sort of throw that hands up in the heart of what should we expect? or 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 throw the 8 years of law

and just as government age additional, the principle of digital independence was destroyed because the additional card was stopped with political 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, because we won't be able to talk about this again, i'm not saying, but for now, we'll leave it that you've given us a taste of what we can expect in donald to 6 to thank you so much for joining us. mazda and separate allstate from globe sag it's and then that's it's more online at ad d, w, and use the

in the notes as best as finland center. sustainable spirit showing the year in the christian disability, old traditions meet new ideas. the white one, deland, is mindful of the environment. finland's gift to the future. focus on your next on d. w. next week about 1000000000. all these celebrations

on one says it depends on where you are in europe, that's the most within the i'm interest trust. in the us and india admiration. why our opinions so different from most exactly influences, officer to, to, to work well made in germany in 60 minutes on dw, the, the glistening place of the mediterranean explosives connects people of many of mazda and jeff bar up to korea. to us during motor styles

and committed to a name where he left his trees. meeting viewing the 3 d, w, the, the hello and the very one. welcome to focus on europe with me live, show people across europe are in a festive mood. decorated trees bring that special christmas feeling to towns and villages across the continent. people visit markets in droves because they are.