colorado. gov. polis: you'll be happy to know that the escort committee did their job, i was unable to escape, but they fully contain the and did their job. speaker, majority leader durand, majority leader rodriguez, majority leader lynch, treasurer young, secretary of state griswold, first gentleman reese, members of the state board of education, justices of the colorado supreme court, members of the cabinet, denver mayor mike johnson, u.s. attorney cole finnegan, and of course all the members of the colorado general assembly, there's a few new ones i haven't met yet. welcome. over the last year i've been thinking a lot about who we want to be when our great state turns 150 years all come in just two years. as we envision our future together, i'm often reminded of president kennedy speech it rice university, it was there when he articulated his full vision, saying we choose to go to the moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because it is hard. he took a seemingly impossible goal, who

colorado. >> [applause] >> you will be happy to know the escort committee did their job. i was unable to escape. i tried between the first and second floor but they did their job. speaker mccluskey, president, majority leader, majority leader rodriguez, minority leader lynch, minority leader, lieutenant governor primavera, treasurer young, attorney general weiser, secretary of state griswold, first gentleman reese, members of the state board of education, justices of the colorado supreme court, the tribal treasurer, measures of -- members of the cabinet, denver mayor mike johnson, u.s. -- colorado springs mayor, fort collins mayor, u.s. attorney cole finnegan, and of course all the members of the colorado general assembly. assembly, there's a welcome. over the last year i've been thinking a lot about who we want to be when our great state turns 150 years old. in just two years. as we envision our future together, i'm often reminded of president kennedy's speech at rice university in 1962. it wa

it's called the colorado strike song. this is an example of what the national guard will use to protect the camp or to enforce colorado laws at the camp. and then this is just some more publications about what what the united mine workers is trying to encourage other miners and people outside of southern colorado to know about what's happening in the mines. and so over here, it says these are the seven demands. one of them is that they want recognition of a union. they want a 10% advance in their wages. they want a eight hour workday. they want to be paid for dead work. so if they're actually going into the mine, they want to be paid for that at the time. they're only getting paid for whatever coal they bring out there. also want their own check women. so when they bring out the coal, the people that are weighing it are saying, okay, a ton of coal is actually 20 £500 because there's a bunch of other rocks that are put in there. okay. and so we are only paying you for the coal itself that you're burning. so they want it to

colorado's primary is march 5th. with that, the fate of our democracy is now in the hands of those nine justices, a group that includes clarence thomas, and the three appointed by donald trump. yesterday, a group of house democrats called on justice thomas to recuse himself from the colorado case, trump v. anderson. you may remember that justice thomas's wife, ginni thomas, has admitted to attending trump stop the steal rally on january the six. the house democrats wrote, quote, the january six rally morphed into the attack on the capital, and on congress, which the colorado court found to have been an insurrection, and act which disqualifies mr. trump from having his name placed on the presidential primary election ballot in that state. not only did your wife attend the january 6th rally, but she was instrumental in planning it and bringing the insurrectionists to the capitol. it is unthinkable that you can be impartial and deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an insurrection, that w

law through this process and say that colorado law has not been properly applied in colorado. they have not followed colorado law, especially procedurally at the district court level, to get to this point. >> yeah, they are almost trying to reverse the clock and ignore the supreme court scolding last year in -- which i argued and we talked about back in june. that puts an end to these arguments, lawrence. these are bad arguments. they are not going anywhere. i think trump is slightly better argument is the one you were talking about with andrew moment ago, which is that he hasn't been criminally convicted, and the two key problems with that are, number one, the reason he hasn't been criminally convicted is because he is finally delayed motion after delay motion to try and prevent his criminal trials from happening, so that he can't be convicted. and number two, there is just nothing in the text of the constitution anywhere that has a criminal conviction requirement. and again, if you are jimmy carter and you want to read that into the constitution and blow off the text, that i

i think that the colorado supreme court got it right. only two courts in this country have looked at the base question did donald trump engage in insurrection, and both of the courts have said yes. again, i believe that the colorado supreme court got it right, because i don't believe that there should be a loophole in the constitution for a president trying to engage in insurrection or rebellion against the country. >> so what is going to be happening in the next few days with donald trump's name being put on the colorado primary ballot as we wait to see when he files the appeal with the u.s. supreme court, and what do you do in the next few days? >> i certify the ballot on friday. so that is the process telling all of the county clerks which candidates can be on the ballots that they will then go print. now, the colorado supreme court has said that he is disqualified, but putting a hold on the decision. so, they said that he is disqualified, but if an appeal is filed, he is presumed back on the ballot unless the u.s. supreme court takes

1 million colorado voters. completely ignoring what he is charged with doing. it's really sore of beyond the tails of legally wrong and as a ten here in terms of how any rational person would lead the opening salvo in the brief. >> neil, another point that appears to be lost on the trump lawyers is that no one has a right to be on a ballot in the indicted states. in the state of california, you need to get over 50,000 signatures to get your name on the ballot. in maine, you have to get 4000 to 5000 signatures to get your name on the ballot. you can't just walk in and file some form and say, okay, my name is on the ballot, there are many, many roadblocks to getting a name on the ballot, which is why, for example, for independent candidates running for president, the first big challenge is, how many states can they get their names on the ballot? they read very rarely get their name on the ballots in 50 states. so, this is completely absent from any discussion of ballot access by the trump lawyers. >> first of all

they're diagnose to hear the colorado case. what happened there, as you may recall, that process went all the way up to the state supreme court of colorado and resulted in them saying trump can be banned from the ballot. that was a huge deal. this case, as i've mentioned and we heard our guests refer to, is a legal long shot. whether you like or dislike donald trump, whether you personally think there's overwhelming evidence he tried to overthrow the election, as a legal matter we'll show you why this is a hail mary. nothing like this has happened in a presidential race. there is basically no precedent for a state unilaterally booting a presidential candidate, let alone a former president, off the ballot. it's a big deal and a high bar typically to disqualify a presidential candidate. it's controversial. take one summary from "the new yorker," not exactly known for rooting for donald trump in court or any other venue, which said, this is basically a high-risk legal effort, that it could inflame political divisions, cast a shado

so that is what happens to individuals in southern colorado because in order to live in southern coloradoe a house to live in and of the company comes up with this great idea and this is what the coal miners had been living in. on the bottom it says the sort of houses they built for themselves and this is the sort of helps the company built for them. 1903, 1904 they decided we are going to build these structures because we don't l want our employees living in dirt so they tear down the houses or move out and put them in these wooden houses. what do you think the first thing is? >> charged them rent. >> what do you use to heat the homes? coal and do you think they will getit a discount? no, it will be at cost so you living here. is it easier to heat the house or an adobe house? adobe. why? >> [inaudible] >> how is it insulated? it is what? >> mode and hay. >> hey. >> and it's about this thick to replace the wood wall about this thick and that is the goal it is supposed to cool in the summer time so you're going to useless. so you get charged rent and have to pay and cost. you would have to

, that is up to the citizens of colorado. the dispute ultimately will go to the supreme court. we know it is headed there. we will live by that decision. from the work of our community, we made certain recommendations about donald trump's conduct on that date. leading up to that, we feel very comfortable with it. new york, the district of columbia, it will all be addressed. this is all going to be uncovered. we were not looking at the prosecutor body. we are going to look into the circumstances of january 6th. here we are, close to a three- year anniversary, and the wheels of justice are moving. i would say the work of our community has a lot to do with what is happening in those different venues around the country. >> i want you to look at something that president joe biden said this afternoon in a major campaign speech. he was in pennsylvania, near valley forge. >> i will say what donald trump won't. political violence is never, ever acceptable. never. it has no place in a democracy. none. >> the threat of political violenc

colorado's election code it's the court c jurisdiction over this. the procedures which are really, really spotty insert spotty the inspection clause does apply to him. and to the president. and he violated it. his speech was designed under vandenberg standard to incite a riot. he did so it was his intent. didn't say he incited it that he participated by egging them on and continuing to add them on once they were inside theon capitol. they also held section through the 14th amendment is self-executing. it's a problematic on all sorts of levels. each wrote separate dissenting opinions. they all agreed colorado's election code which is very expedited proceedings. the trial judge did not comply with in that statute. they said there's no way colorado's election code was designed to take on something as fast and intensive and complex issue like this. it was designed to take on did you pay the filing fee? veare you the right age question of these are very easily determined. nothing like this. trump's due process rights were violated. any more substantive h

>> colorado's elections are the best in the nation. we think we'll have a great election regardless of what happens. we have provisions already under colorado law to deal with the situation when a candidate is disqualified, when their name already appears on the ballot, and the vast majority of coloradans vote their mail ballots even with unprecedented in-person voting opportunities. i think it's important to note that we are only here because donald trump incited the sex. he has created this situation for himself. there's clear language in the constitution in section three of the 14th amendment for this exact situation. i believe he is a threat to democracy, the right to vote and the future stability of this nation, but, of course, we'll await to see what the u.s. supreme court says. of course, i will follow whatever order is in place throughout the election. >> you have said and obviously it's clear from what you said there the court made the right decision. many trump critics warn this risks turning trump into a martyr and tearing t

virtually all of them other than colorado and maine have been rejected.n in colorado, you had a seven-justice state supreme court there, all appointed by democrats, even that was 4-3. so the decisions throwing trump off the ballot are in a distinct minority and i expect that trend to continue when the u.s. supreme court takes this case. >> paula, what should we be looking for right now specifically in the immediate days ahead as both sides are getting ready to make their oral arguments before the nine justices of the supreme court? >> well, i know everyone on this panel is going to be eager to read these briefs. what are the arguments? we know generally what the two sides will argue because, again, this has been litigated across multiple states through colorado, through maine, but it will be really interesting to see how they layout their theory of the case, the questions that they will present and answers that they hope the court will give them. i think we have a good sense of what they'll say, but, man, that oral argument date on february 8th, that is g

so either way, we'll have a great election in colorado. colorado is considered the gold standard of the nation's elections, but it definitely is a unique situation, because usually we do not have candidates for president who have engaged in insurrection and their candidacy is being challenged like donald trump's. >> unique is a unique word which to use. so yesterday you issued a statement saying colorado and the american people deserve clarity on whether someone who engaged in insurrection may run for the country's highest office. i urge the court to prioritize this case and issue a ruling as soon as possible. what is the ideal timeline for you? >> well, the ideal timeline would have been before certification, but i think we have to just deal with the fact that it's completely up to the united states supreme court and adjust as necessary. i do think that the colorado supreme court got it right. only two courts in this nation have looked at the question of whether donald trump engaged in insurrection. they both said yes. i think on this ann

jena griswold is the secretary of state for colorado. still ahead this hour, the judge michael luttig had preserve democracy on january six. he did it from a standing room table. judge luttig is going to join me next with his remarkable story. maybe i can get him to do it from the dining room table like you did back then? three years later, american democracy is not in the clear, however, far from. it i will speak with two scholars on what we should all be paying attention to. you're watching velshi on msnbc. ching velshi on msnbc. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. as the world keeps moving, help prevent covid-19 from breaking your momentum. you may have already been vaccinated against the

they can if they want rule narrowly as to colorado.he ruling would read something like yes, the states do you have the ability to administer the 14th amendment themselves and yes or no colorado did or did not do that in a constitutional way therefore the ruling would fall or rise. but that would leave us to questions with other states, what happened with maine? did they do it correctly? option b, they can say the president is not an officer for purposes of the 14th amendment or it's up to congress not the individual states. if they rule that way it answers colorado and the other states. so if i had to guess, i would guess towards the latter because i don't think they want to invite dozens more appeals. >> they don't want to hear more cases but probably don't want to weigh in on the biggest issue after all, which was is donald trump an insurrection. >> they're not going to, they don't take a body of facts and say such and such. that's for the lower courts. >> i think the justices might look at this as a larger pi picture. they don't jus

colorado springs. colorado download the voice of america mobile application. the application allows you to bypass blocking automatically thanks to the built-in vpn service. read news, watch informative programs and videos, and also listen to podcasts of the ukrainian voice of america service. we will say goodbye at this point, you watched the program of the ukrainian voice of america, chas taay. join in. also to our daily briefings from monday to on friday at 6 p.m. kyiv time on youtube and facebook, where you can ask our hosts yulia yarmolenko and ostapo yarysha your questions live. thank you for trusting the ukrainian voice of america service. i am natalia leonova, good night and good morning. congratulations, we have very encouraging news about six-year-old mysh melnyk, we have been looking for a boy since march.

case based on the colorado trial and the trial judge's finding in colorado that donald trump was ant to the insurrectionists on january 6th, putting him squarely within the 14th amendment's terms. i think you're right, lisa, to say the court would probably add some language, if they were to affirm the colorado supreme court, the u.s. supreme court would say, look, you know, we're basing it on the way this case, as it comes to the court with the facts as adjudicated by the trial judge. i think then it would be open to donald trump in other states to try and say he's not an insurrectionist. you know, tough argument, but he can try and make that argument. the challengers might say this collateral estoppel, you've litigated this in one court, you don't get another bite at the apple. it will get pretty technical and probably too hard to resolve on this video discussion right now. >> it strikes me that we have this breaking news about the supreme court choosing to hear president trump's 14th amendment appeal as you have president biden making one of the most important speeches of his poli

supreme court to overturn the colorado ruling removing him from the ballot. high court under mounting pressure tonight convenient as trump faces ballot disputes in multiple states. our senior justice correspondent evan perez is working this story for us. evan, what is trump arguing in this apoel? >> wolf, the former president is arguing that this extraordinary decision from the colorado supreme court cannot be allowed to stand simply for a number of reasons, including the fact that the 14th amendment should not apply to the office of president. it's not mentioned in the 14th amendment section 3 of the 14th amendment. the former president also points out that he -- that under his -- his belief he did not actually engage in an insurrection, so the colorado decision was incorrect, according to their filing. i'll read you just some more of this 43 pages here that they filed with the supreme court. they say this court should grant certiori and return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters. they go on to say, wolf, this is a ruling, again, th

again, their job here is to review the findings of the colorado district court as reviewed by the coloradoreme court, and my guess is that they will hue very closely to that review role as opposed to making independent findings of their own. my guess is that they will try and skirt the question of whether president trump engaged in an insurrection or not and instead try to find an off ramp for themselves that is just on the question of law. i will tell you that finding one of those off ramps may be hard for the reasons that judges and legal scholars have found. my guess is among the technical legal arguments that one could make, including those in the trump brief, the supreme court will avail itself of at least one of those. >> got it. lisa rubin, thank you very much. joining us as promised, presidents of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, noaa bookbinder, representing the voters seek to go disqualify donald trump in colorado. good to see you. it's been a minute. let me ask you whether you think this is a complicated issue for the supreme court. is it? >> you know, i thi

the colorado republican party that has join ed with donald trump to challenge the ruling by the coloradort says as long as you rule by march 5th, things will be okay. march 5th is super tuesday. colorado and about 15 other states will be holding their primaries that day. so that's the time pressure on this court that normally moves very slowly. >> we'll be following your reporting. thank you so much. >> thank you. >>> coming up, more from our town hall with nikki haley and ron desantis. the two candidates sharpening their attacks on donald trump. >>> and oscar pistorius, the double amputee olympian turned killer is out of prison. why he was freed after killing his girlfriend and her family now will respond. get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on. yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm rea

if you look again, just today the colorado secretary of state certified the ballot for colorado. that's the official date that kicks us off for colorado. march 5th is actually election day, but in between now and then there's a lot of key dates. one of them, of course, is january 20th where ballots go out to military and overseas voters. do we think that justices are ready to kick off donald trump off the ballot, the primary ballot in colorado, including especially these military voters who will have begun casting their ballots by then? you take a look at that calendar again, on february 12th is when other mail-in ballots begin going out. the first in-person voting begins on february 28th. so, again, a lot of us certainly when we starred hearted hearingh amendment challenges, the idea the former president would be kicked off ballots in states because of the section 3 of the 14th amendment which, you know, again declares him to be an insurrectionist seemed very far fetched but here we are, right. these challenges have gone much further than anyone thought, and so here we have the

the colorado republicans did not contest. those or means to be seen whether the court will grant cert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they ultimately resolve it. >> elliot, i mean, you reference this earlier, the former president's attorneys are arguing the insurrectionist ban does not apply to the presidency, and he section three of the 14th amendment does not specifically mention the presidency, which is true, it says officer of the united states. the counter argument is doesn't make any sense the authors -- would ban insurrectionists from holding virtually every other job in the government, symbol of the military, and not the highest office in the country? >> it's sort of preposterous as a matter of plain language you and i, talking the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states is ludicrous. however, read the language of the constitution and it is quite clear that they say frankly there is another provision of the constitution that say

and the colorado republicans didn't contest those. it's remains to be seen whether the court will grant krert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they resolve it. >> elliott, the former president's attorneys are arguing the so-called insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to the presidency and section iii of the 14th amendment does not specifically mention the presidency, which is true. it says, officer of the united states. the count argument is, does it make any sense that the authors of the constitution would ban insurrectionists from holding virtually every other job in the government, both civil and military, and not the highest in the country. >> as a matter of plain language saying the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states is ludicrous. however, read the language of the constitution. and it is quite clear that they say, frankly, there's another provision in the constitution that says the president, comma, vice president, comma, and officers of t

in colorado, you can vote by mail. the first date for actual required in person voting in colorado's rubbery 26th. so for the february 8th oral argument, we're talking about a matter of days, a few weeks, for them to have a decision for them to actually be meaningful. >> it's time. yep. quick one last question to you, lawrence, with regard to the pressure which was certainly on for supreme court justices long before they are great to hear this case. even though they may not necessarily be very eager to share their opinions. there have been calls for justice thomas to recuse himself. and then trump himself mentioned the judges last night. what are you hearing about how this is being perceived inside those hallowed halls? >> well, i think one thing is clear from the order that the court put out yesterday, normally when they issue an order like that it'll say the justices are accusing themselves. from a certain case. there was nothing on there. i think we can assume that all nine justices are gonna be on that case. of cou

>> i think the biggest problem with the colorado supreme court's decision, so colorado has a processou can challenge a candidate if you don't think they belong on the ballot. it has historically been used for very minor things, things like if a school board candidate is running and they don't live in the place where they need to live in order to run for the school board. those are very simple cases. it is a truncated process. it doesn't have the sort of discovery and ability to call witnesses and other stuff that you normally think of in a trial. and, you know, i think it would be perfectly appropriate for the supreme court to say, this process isn't enough for such a monumental decision. a new constitutional issue, one that requires a great deal of fact-finding. and so the court could say, we're going to put this off, say, until his criminal trial is resolved. and if he is convicted of trying to steal the 2020 election, then they can come back and revisit this question of whether he should be on the ballot. >> i want to play a little game called reality housewives of the supreme cou

the colorado supreme court stated trump did engage in insurrection.is responsible for many of the actions on january 6 and because of his engagement in insurrection, he is disqualified from the colorado ballot. but the court added a caveat that if an appeal was filed, i was to place him on the ballot. you know, donald trump, his name is very likely to be printed on the ballots, just given the timeline. if the court were to order that he is not a qualified candidate, well, we have scenarios under colorado law similar to that that of played out in the past and we would not count the votes for him if he was a disqualified candidate. >> so that could possibly mean that he would be on the ballot this time. say ballots were cast and votes were cast in favor of donald trump. let's use a hypothetical that the court comes back and says this person was not eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. that means those votes in favor of him would no longer be counted in light of colorado law? >> a similar situation happened actually during the 2020 presidenti

so what's the state of play in colorado?, donald trump is officially on the ballot, however we're not certain that absent a supreme court ruling that affirmatively declares that he needs to be on that ballot and his votes need to be counted and not sure our secretary of state is going to count those votes and we're very relievinged the court has taken up the -- relieved the court has taken up the case and do what it should have done from the beginning and allow the right to choose donald trump if they want. kayleigh: your secretary of state, is not going to count the ballot sos trump being on the ballot is not a cure all. listen to what she said she'll do if the supreme court upholds the state of colorado. >> and if the supreme court rules in favor of the colorado supreme court to remove trump from the ballot, but his name is still there, what happens then? >> colorado's elections take into account candidates that either drop out of a race when their name is already on the ballot or otherwise unable to be voted on. so in tha

i tend to side with colorado and mr. olson on that one.an carve that up linguistically either way, but i think just common sense, as mr. olson says, how could it not apply to the president? but all this is new, caitlin. whatever happens here, we're all gonna learn together. >> john dean, if you're a supreme court justice, what are you thinking about tonight? you know, as this is, it seems, inevitable to lay out in their laps. >> well, i think the brief actually, the petition, and to dissipates the court and that they are very, very light on the argument that there was no insurrection, and trump wasn't involved. i don't think the court wants to go into that, as ali said. there's a fact finding body in colorado that really looked through early at that, they had a trial on it for five days, and they're not gonna go there. so what i am looking at is, what is gonna solve this problem statewide and nationally, if you will? because it's gonna come back up at the level of the general election. so we need to get it resolved. >> yeah. it could be ch

she's now moved to the state mental health institute, which is in pueblo, colorado. and there, she is getting evaluated to see if she's competent to stand trial. - why do you think she was moved? i'm sorry to interrupt, but it sounds like because of your reporting. - yeah, well, she was moved about two weeks later. now remember she spent six months in jail without conviction. and we're talking about civil liberties here, so we can get back to that. but, she was moved over to pueblo, which is where you go to get evaluated, to see if you're competent to stand trial. and she's had two evaluations so far, neither of which she has passed. what happens from this point forward is that she is probably gonna have one or two more, maybe more evaluations before it's determined whether she is capable of understanding what's going on at trial. and if she fails those, then a judge would determine potentially that she is not to be prosecuted for this. the charges would be dropped. then what happens is the next big question, right? it is entirely possible that when those charges are

is defined as colorado is tough court disqualified trump from the states primary for his role in the 2021 storming of the us come the pablo funding the s welcome to the program around supreme leader has 5 to carry out a harsh response after twin explosions in the country south killed at least 95 people. the glass happened near the grave. a former top commander costs him slowly money. mourners had gathered for a ceremony to mark 4 years since he was killed in the us drone strike. there's been no claim of responsibility yet for the explosions. the aftermath of a blast that shook the city of care. mont and iran south for leasing, shrapnel into the screaming crowd. local media captures the moment people started running as they heard the 1st explosion go off. another glass nearby followed some minutes later. thousands were attending the ceremony honoring the prominent iranian general custom solely many killed in the us, drake, in 2020. the us says it has no role in this attack. and that is real, didn't either. it's too early, at least for us to be able to say what might have caused it. bu

oral arguments are scheduled now for february 8th on the colorado supreme court's decision to remove trump from the state's ballot, claiming he had engaged in an insurrection. the colorado court ruled that disqualifies him according to the 14th amendment of the constitution. for now, trump is still on the ballot. that is pending the appeals process. colorado's primary, i should note, is set for super tuesday on march 5th, but ballots go out quite soon. the trump campaign responded to this news, saying that it welcomes a fair hearing at the supreme court. and in iowa just a short time later, the former president also used that same word, fair, as he appeared to send a message to those justices, three of whom he appointed. >> all i want is fair. i fought really hard to get three very, very good people in there, great people, very smart people. and i just hope that they're going to be fair.

remember, the colorado supreme court's decision had a stay in it. essentially saying that because colorado state law requires certification of the ballot on january 5th, hello, today, because of that they stayed their decision. the impact of that is double trump remains on the colorado ballot unless and until the supreme court acts and lets the world know what it intends to do here. i do think administratively it's sort of less of a headache because of that stay. on the other hand, you know, chris, this is a supreme court that could do any number of things here. the only timeline by which we have they have to operate is really their own. practical exigencies sometimes be dammed. i hope they will act with alacrity. i hope i hope they will. >> scott, i'm asking you to do a bit of mine reading in projection here. indulge me for a second. my strong sense is that most of the people of the court would rather not be pulled into doing these cases. if they had a term where they were not doing this and immunity, and they're gonna get them both, almost certain

there is a fact-finding body in colorado that really looked thoroughly at that. had a trial on it for five days. and they're not going to go there. so what i'm looking at is what is going to solve this problem statewide and nationally, if you will. so that -- because it's going to come back up at the level of the general election. so we need to get it resolved. >> yeah. it could be chaos if they don't. elie, we've been hearing from trump attorneys. i do wonder if to a degree part of the argument was trump wanted that included in this response to say that he didn't engage in the insurrection, because he was, you know -- whenever that was determined by the courts in colorado, by the secretary of state there, it was a sore point for him. but his attorney christina bobb was talk about the application of the 14th amendment. this is what she told -- what she said about that. >> section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't even apply to the president. it's not self-executing. donald trump hasn't been charged with insurrection. and this is a question for the voters. the reaso

colorado votes on march 5th.ents, chris wallace will join us on the political impact of all of this. but first, joining me now from her first interview since trump filed his appeal to the supreme court, colorado secretary of state janet griswold. thank you very much for staying up for us tonight, secretary of state griswold. can you first walk us through what this means for the state of colorado? if we don't get a ruling by january 5th, in just a couple of days, does that mean trump remains on the ballot in colorado, basically, no matter what? >> well, first off, thank you for having me. and don't you worry, it's not too late in colorado, so, still plenty of time to talk about this crucial case. the colorado supreme court ruled that trump engaged in insurrection, and because of that, he was disqualified from the ballot. when they put up a caveat into their ruling, saying that if the case was appealed to the u. s. supreme court, trump would be on the ballot until the supreme court acted in some way. so, as of toda

i don't know how rich boulder, colorado, colorado university of colorado boulder is per se, but obviously mit and all the big loads of big us academic institutions have huge funding. a link to the pentagon is that of texting people's understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons. i don't detected me american universities that there's really much military involved. that is true, that son or universities don't ask for teacher already. and i had weapons, parts of the university went um, rather trying to help the military, probably a spin off from the 2nd floor in earlier times branch. i don't see a lot of military research in universities, and uh, you know, the los alamos and the department of energy laboratories, in general have shoes, human society just or have come from university is course, kind of working at those places and military tasks. you know, it's a natural, apparently human behavior to walk out of military to protect the country that you live in. and so like i can see that's a, that's probably not going to ever change. it's a human thing to feel like you want to protect yours

the colorado decision was made by the state supreme court.maine it was the democratic secretary of state who moved to disqualify him based on the insurrection clause. is there a common question being answered as each state weighs the same question? >> this ballot access issue in election losses is so state specific. we have really different processes in each state and frankly individual locale to determine access. all of a sudden that is coming to a head here. we are seeing very different processes play out. but i expect the supreme court is going to try to issue a broad enough decision to embrace some of these other actions. amna: president trump's appeal is based on two elements. one is enforceability. and the other argument is just the wording of the 14th amendment. they argue the president inot technically an officer of the united states as the language specifies, it wasn't an insurrection so he didn't engage in insurrection. do those arguments hold water in your view? >> the trump team has some good arguments to make. the supreme court i

. >> i know what happened in colorado. what i said was that i did not read through all of the evidence specifically to be able to qualify whether there was hearsay or not. to get back to my question, you said that you would decide to remove joe biden from the ballot in your statement. according to your state constitution, which i just read you from, it says you need to go to court. i am asking you what you think the strongest argument is. >> and i continue to try to answer your questions and you continue to try to tell this stuff that just is not true. >> you made an accusation about me not knowing something. i am trying to clarify it for you. you can answer the question or continue to deflect it. one of the strongest argument you would make in court to remove joe biden from the ballot? go! >> what has happened is -- >> what i said in my statement was if this comes the law of the land -- >> -- but estate can choose according to their state constitutions? i'm just trying to clarify the point. >> the united states constituti

the supreme court needs to tell colorado essentially, you know, start piece, right? so as i say, it was a certainly very complex. then if you could, every briefly, what can we expect the supreme court to add the site? well, that is the huge question that everyone is wondering about right now. it is on press that question that this amendment has never come up in this way before the supreme court is also not a question that cuts so clearly on kind of normal, logical grounds. obviously there's a 63 conservative majority. 3 of those 6 were appointed by trump, but a lot of conservative legal scholars say this amendment is pretty clear that he should be as qualified if he took part in this direction. what is certain is that this is a huge political question that whatever decision they make will have a huge impact, randi election coming up. well, they will be keeping a close eye enough, dw reporter, bend, oregon. all right, let's take a quick look now at some of the other stories making use around the world. a us court has started on seeding the identities of people linked

the colorado decision was made by the state supreme court.ine, it was the secretary of state who made the decision. also on the basis of the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment. is there a common standard or question being answered as each state weighs this same question? >> i think that really ties into your last question. ballot access issues are still -- so state specific. we have really different processes in each locale, towns, villages, things like that, to determine access. all of a sudden, it is coming to a head here and we are seeing very different processes play out. but i expect the supreme court is going to try to issue a broad enough decision to embrace some of these other actions coming out of different states as well. amna: former president trump's appeal is based on two elements. one is enforceability. the appeal says the question of eligibility to serve is properly reserved for congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide. the other argument is just the wording of the 14th amendment. they argue the president i

one from colorado, the other from maine. the colorado appeal will go to the supreme court, where they now have the option of taking up this dwe of whether or not donald trump can be removed from these primary ballots by state officials. we have already heard from the secretary of state who is encouraging the supreme court not only to take this up, but to weigh in and weigh in quickly. i have to certificate i if i the names by the end of this week. i need a definitive answer as to whether or not donald trump's name should be included in there. you get a sense of the urgency from these election officials as the question hangs out there. we expect that trump is going to appeal this decision in maine. that was made by the secretary of state there. that appeal will go to state level courts. we know that both decisions are on hold until the courts in both cases can sort of get this resolved. in maine the state level krcour deadline is the end of this month. but the large expectation here is the u.s. supreme court will be the one w

colorado supreme court says trump is ineligible.nt and well studied decision on this. but immediately, they stayed the decision until today, until january 5th, because this is the day the ballots have to be printed for colorado. now, what happens? >> they actually did more than that. for everyone who was criticizing colorado, they were showing great restraint because as you said, they did find that he should be disqualified, but they immediately stayed the decision, and they stayed it with the two different triggers. they said that it is stayed until today unless the supreme court takes it, we're gonna hear the case, in which case it stayed until the decision comes out. so, they basically were saying that, you know, if the supreme court wants to hear that, we are stepping aside because obviously, we are subordinate to the supreme court. there was a stay in place. they, the supreme court took the case. there is still a stay in the case which means that a ballot in colorado will have trump's name on it, for the moment. and then, obvio

we just got an order from dinosaur, colorado. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for free at godaddy.com you know what's interesting these days? bitcoin. look for bitwise, my friends. family and larry: if you know who i'm talking about. but then again liz macdonald always knows who i'm talking alaska elizabeth: thank you, larry. we have breaking news coming in, reaction is now pouring in to the president's speech just a few moments ago. fox news contributor liz peek, wall street journal columnist bill mcgurn joining us. liz, the president just attacked president trump and maga republican voters. good to see you both. liz, he's saying democracy is on the ballot when democrats are trying to take trump off the ballot in a dozen states, what do you think, liz? >> here's a guy attacking his number one political opponent trying to get him thrown in jail, trying to take away his business and take him off the ballot so people can't vote for their preferred candidate. liz, th

to remove the former president from colorado are -- colorado's state ballot there.hat do you make of the states' push, about a dozen, to remove the former president from state primary ballots? >> it's ridiculous, and everyone knows it's ridiculous. this is the left's continuation of their attack on president trump. never forget the sequence, liz. they spied on his campaign, then it was the mueller investigation, then it was impeachment, hen that they raid his home, then it was four indictments, two by the special counsel at the federal level work the at the state level, and now they're e trying to keep him off the ballot. it seems like every time they do, the country understands that this is are ridiculous, wrong, and president trump's numbers go up. and they also understand that that when he was in office, he did what he said he was going to do and made the country stronger and better. that's why he's going to win again in no, i believe. elizabeth: chairman jim jordan, thanks for joining us live from the border at eagle pass, texas. thank you again, sir. >>> joinin

colorado says no. maine says no. oregon and new hampshire and others might also chime in and say no. of course donald trump says yes, he is. so who ultimately decides this? the supreme court obviously is the ultimate decision maker here, and they might get involved. colorado has already asked them to. now with maine and perhaps others moving to take trump off the ballot, it only gets harder for the supremes to stay out of it. but here's the issue. getting into it is pretty complicated. both colorado and maine cite section 3 of the 14th amendment which bars officials who have taken an oath to support the constitution from holding office if they engage in an insurrection. the states say it is clear trump did just that on january 6th. what does the supreme court do about that? you might start to think about the make-up of the court. even though donald trump appointed three of the justices, trump himself, though, when he's had issues in front of the court, well, the court hasn't ruled in his favor. so on the one hand, ge