thank you, noah bookbinder. donald trump's attorney was on cnn tonight giving a preview of how they're going to argue likely on appeal. listen to what they said. >> we'll argue to the colorado supreme court a lot of the same arguments we made before, which is, you know, the textual and historical analysis of the 14th amendment, especially considering the fact that the way our constitution is set up, the way our republic is set up is people get to choose who gets to be their president. we shouldn't have courts striking people from the ballot. we're also going to, you know, fully take on the court's erroneous argument that president trump engaged in an insurrection. we think that's just flat-out wrong, certainly contrary to the evidence. it was a little bit unusual for her to spend a lot of time talking about that. >> so what exactly happens now? will that argument work on appeal? that's the real question for so many people. i've got just the guest for that very question. let's get right to marcus childress, forme

i want to get right to noah bookbinder for citizens for responsibility and ethics, the acronym known as -- >> hello. >> they had a trial on the merits about the underlying facts of an insurrection. are you surprised by tonight's decision that he is going to still be on the ballot according to what the judge say? >> i think the most significant thing in this ruling tonight is this ruling that donald trump did incite an insurrection by a judge who heard days of testimony, thousands of pages of evidence that was submitted, that's, i think, the most significant thing. this ruling about the president not being an officer of the united states, we obviously disagree with that ruling. it will be appealed. that is a legal, strictly legal ruling that the colorado supreme court will have its own chance to evaluate but the thing that wa in this proceeding that already happened was that evidentiary hearing with days of testimony, with reams of evidence and the judge looked at that and found that donald trump incited insurrection within the meaning of the 14th amendment and i think that's the most

noah bookbinder is a president citizens for -- which brought that lawsuit in colorado, also the one ine now. noah, first just lay out what this lawsuit is. how it works, is this a state court action and you are suing donald trump? >> that's right. we are actually suing the secretary of state of colorado, who is in charge of the ballot in colorado. so, you're right, this is under the united states constitution, which has this purge-o-vision that you just went through. but it creates a qualification for office. in colorado, there's a state law that says that voters can go to court and say that somebody is not qualified, and therefore, they have to remove from the ballot. just as they would if somebody was running for president, and they were 27 years old. the constitution says you have to be 35. you can go to court. this is obviouslya more consequential qualification in some ways. or more complicated one. but it's still a qualification. so, these voters that we represent, republican on affiliated voters, sued to keep donald trump off of the ballot. and what we've had this past week's and

joining me now is noah bookbinder, he's the president and ceo of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. it's known as crew. crew bought the case on behalf of republicans and unaffiliated voters. noah, your take on what has happened this morning and the discussions we've had on it? >> so, a really important thing that came out of yesterday's ruling was that this judge, after hearing five days of testimony, reviewing mountains of evidence, something that had not happened in any other court in the united states, this judge found that donald trump incited insurrection. that is a finding that, as secretary griswold said, it is historic. it is entitled to a great deal of deference, because it is based on the evidence. it's based on the adversarial process. so that's incredibly significant. she also made this other legal ruling, which you've talked about, that the president essentially is not an officer of the united states. that is something -- that's a legal ruling, surely on the law. it's not based on that evidence. and because of that, when this goes up on appeal, as the tec