> reporter: "out front next," a ruling from a colorado judge on whether to disqualify trump from runn"> > reporter: "out front next," a ruling from a colorado judge on whether to disqualify trump from runn" property="og:description"> > reporter: "out front next," a ruling from a colorado judge on whether to disqualify trump from runn">
erin burnett "out front" starts right now. >> reporter: "out front next," a ruling from a colorado judge on whether to disqualify trump from running in the state. breaking, powerful explosions rocking northern gaza. israel now warning it will strike anywhere hamas is found as hamas release as new hostage video. new video of house speaker mike johnson making anti-gay comments weeks before he was elected speaker, more as we learn from his wife's ultra conservative views. let's go "out front." good evening, i'm erin burnett. we begin with breaking news. a judge seconds ago just ruling on whether former president trump should be kicked off the ballot in the state of colorado. the judge deciding trump is eligible to run for president even after his role in the january 6 insurrection. a group of voters filed a lawsuit, and this was based on the 14th amendment, arguing that amendment would bartrum from federal office. a judge, though, ruling the other way. a team of reporters standing by. lucy cavanaugh is out in front, evan perez in washington. as i said seconds ago, i haven't had a chance to read 102 pages. what do we need to know? >> the bottom line the judge, sarah wallace, is ordering donald trump's name will appear on the ballot in colorado this is a ruling that just came down. the bottom line for the judge is the 14th amendment, which is what these voters were seeking to have enforced, the judge is saying it's not clear that this applies to the president of the united states or that this president is covered by that section, that the writers of that section of the constitution intended for that to apply to the president of the united states. i'll read you just a part of what the 14th amendment says. anyone who has taken an oath as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof is disqualified from holding office. that's what the voters were seeking to have enforced, to have the former president struck from the ballot in colorado. the judge said that really she can't really enforce that because it's clear to her that if the framers of the constitution intended for that to apply to a president of the united states, they would have made that much clearer. and so, in her view, it does not apply and, therefore, the former president will appear on the colorado ballot. now this is in line, we should say, with other challenges that have come forward. there are voters who brought similar challenges, another fringe candidate has brought a lawsuit in new hampshire. all tossed aside for this reason. it's not clear that you can bar the former president of the united states because of what happened on january 6 and his involvement inspiring what happened on january 6th, erin. >> we'll have a lot more to talk about. you lay out that on a certain level so others could be barred but not the president of the united states. that's confusing. i think all could see that but there's a lot to get through here, it's 102 pages. as it significant case because people have been watching colorado so closely. lucy, what are you hearing? >> reporter: obviously all eyes have been on colorado where this electoral drama had been playing out. as my colleague just pointed out, judge wallace ordered the colorado secretary of state to place the president on the ballot when it verifies the ballot january 5th. this lawsuit was filed by six colorado voters, four republicans and two unaffiliated, with the help of the watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. in court they argued trump engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the u.s. capitol in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power. trump's attorney, also a former colorado secretary of state, he had argued that not only does january 6 not qualify as an insurrection but there is no evidence that trump intended to incite violence, that the lawsuit amounts to election interference. we have spoke to voters who are split along party lines in understandable ways. republicans think this is election interference. democrats supporting keeping trump off the balance. we heard from some that given how divided the climate is, perhaps using the legal system as opposed to the ballot box isn't the right way to decide if trump should be in office. secretary, i appreciate you being with me. it's 102 pages. obviously you were watching it incredibly closely. what's your reaction to this? >> well, i think the court could have ruled three different ways, and this is how the court ruled. at the end of the day, there's big questions about how section 3 of the 14th amendment works, and the court has determined that it does not apply to the presidency. there are some people out there, constitutional scholars, who would agree with her. there's others who would not agree with her, and either way i think there's a high chance that this case is further appealed. so i think the court has been very thoughtful, like you said, it's 102 pages. it just broke. and i will follow whatever decision, judicial decision, in place at the time the ballot happens. >> it's important you say it will be further appealed because the expectation had been -- by the way, trump said he expected to lose, that they would, of course, appeal. even with a trump victory, the voters who brought the case will also appeal. i'm here with ryan goodman. did we have section 268 that you were showing me? >> yes. >> i want to read something to you, secretary, and this is something from the ruling, ryan goodman just found this. section 298 consequently the court finds that petitioners have established that trump engaged in an insurrection on january 6, 2021, through incitement and that the first amendment does not protect trump 's speech. secretary, how significant is that line for you? it is, to me, pretty stunning, the whole concern, oh, well, it is hard to prove. the judge says in the ruling that they did establish that trump engaged in an insurrection. >> it's really powerful for the entire nation. i believe trump incited insur insurrection. there are questions whether it reached the level of disqualification and to find a court of law to determine, yes, he did incite the insurrection, i think is important for the entire country. regardless if trump is on the ballot or not, he is a danger to american democracy. he consistently lies to the american people, incited the insurrection, which is very dangerous language. he just showed the capitol in flames. he is a direct danger to democracy and the court really underlined it. >> secretary, i want to be clear. while you are an outspoken trump critic, you were a defendant along with trump in this case because you are the secretary of state. you oversee ballot access. you didn't take a formal legal position in the case. you have seen the evidence. you know it in and out. but you didn't -- you were technically a doeft because of your role as a secretary of state. do you feel that's the right thing? do you believe that's the right thing, the right thing that you had to do that? >> i think it's the right thing for elected officials to follow the law and uphold the constitution. and in colorado there is a law that allows everyday voters to file a lawsuit against a secretary of state challenging the certification of candidates to the ballot. that's what happened in this case. six republican and unaffiliated voters filed a lawsuit saying trump disqualified himself. the judicial system, letting it play out, trump's statement is just a continuation of lies about our democracy. judges decide when there's big, contentious issues. >> secretary griswold, i appreciate your time. thank you for being with us immediately as this broke. you haven't had a chance to read all of it yourself. thank you for coming up and sharing your thoughts with us. >> i want to go now to ryan goodman and joan. let me start with you, ryan. i want to start with section 298, because you found it. i'm going to put it in english. tell me if i'm right. this establishes the judge said trump did indeed incite an insurrection, his words are not covered by the first amendment, but that it's okay that he be put on the ballot to serve as president even though anyone else who did those things would not be. >> absolutely correct. >> okay. can you square that circle? >> so it's a factual finding by the judge that she believes that he did, in fact, have specific intent to incite an insurrection to disrupt the congressional certification of the election. what that would ordinarily mean for other people who swore an oath that they are disqualified from ever serving again, officers of the united states, that it applies to officers of the united states, that does not apply to the president. that would have to be explicit, that it's ambiguous. it's a technical term first to other officers of the united states but not the president. >> and she's thinking if you meant the president, you would say it. i understand that but this is one of those situations where if all of these things are true this is an absurd conclusion to make as a lay person. >> probably so in a certain sense but the other answer might be, you don't want to apply such a categorical bar against someone serving as president. if the entire country wants that person to serve as president, they should be able to do so. >> the will of the voter. >> very special to lead the entire country so that person would not be able to be disqualified by the 14th amendment. there's a special case for the president. >> let voters have their say. don't adjudicate it this way. joan, how do you see this? jump indicated he expected to lose this, that he would, therefore, appeal. you felt it would go quickly. now he's won, presumably there still will be appeals. what happens from here? >> yes, as i understand it the losing party, the challengers, would have until monday to file an appeal with the colorado supreme court and the colorado supreme court would have to decide does it want briefing or briefing and oral arguments? and my understanding from talking to people in colorado that process could run, and i'm gaming it out with you, erin and ryan right now, say it would run about 20 days if they actually had oral arguments if this case is appealed, and we'll know later tonight certainly if the challengers to donald trump trying to keep his name off the ballot are going to appeal. and then, let's just say we get a ruling by early december, december 8th, then the losing party there would come to the supreme court. now donald trump might be the losing party there. the colorado supreme court might say his name should not be on the ballot. for purposes of argument, either donald trump's attorneys or the attorneys for the challengers here would then go to the supreme court and, as i understand it, erin, we've got like a january 5th deadline for, in the state, for getting these ballots prepared. this, to me, has a lot of shades of bush v. gore in early december. much different issue. much different court. i would think the key question, would the supreme court try to decide this question on just filings, or would it hold oral arguments? if donald trump loses before the colorado supreme court and the colorado supreme court says he should not be on the ballot, i would bet the supreme court would not want to hear that appeal only on paper, that it would feel it was important enough if it was going to take the case to actually hold oral arguments and that could happen with a briefing in early january to try to meet a january 5th deadline. now, again, i'm just gaming this out. here is the other thing i would say. if donald trump continues to prevail, if he wins before the colorado supreme court on appeal, there is no split in the circuit at that point. whatever the petition appeal comes to the supreme court, there's no split. he's won in every case and the justices might think they just reject the petition, the attempt to try to reverse the lower courts out of hand. that might be an easy thing for them to do, or they might feel given there's this big cloud hanging over the presidential ballot because of these arguments fully joined now they might have to resolve it so that it's clear going forward for the primary. so i hope that helps give the timetable. i think things will move very fast right away on monday. i think they, as i understand the colorado law, they have to get moving if they're going to appeal. >> people have to pay attention to a level of detail to have this have impact, and certainly we know when it comes to polling and trump's performance and status as a front-runner, nothing has had impact. at least negatively, right? if anything, it seems to have solidified his role. section 293, the court concludes trump ak acted to incite violence and disrupt the certification. and it just continues. 294, when the violence began, he took no effective action. it's all laid out with the conclusion that the petitioners have established he engaged in insurrection through incitement and the first amendment does not protect his speech. if that was just this ruling and nothing else about putting a name on a ballot, that would be a hugely significant thing. does that break through? >> i think it might. court decisions have to be reported. >> sort of in an unexpected way. this, one might argue, is the headline. >> but for the fact he was president, running for president, he would have otherwise been disqualify. that narrow of a miss because the judge is laying it all out that is a judicial finding he is essentially guilty of. that's enormous. >> joan, what do you make of that? the first amendment doesn't protect him but for that he was president he would not be allowed to run. >> but, erin, that is significant, and i think you're exactly right there are some lay people saying -- or many people saying, well, i don't get it. this provision in section 3 that has never been tested, certainly never at the supreme court in this fashion, a key component is the role of the person who took the oath and would have betrayed the oath and this trial judge said, no, this would not aplow to donald trump. if and when it's appealed, and i would think it would be, frankly, they would appeal it on that question and say to the colorado supreme court, look at all these findings. wouldn't you as a matter of law think president trump would qualify here under that provision. >> stay with us, please. to kristen holmes. we know that the former president thought that he would lose this, so he has the -- at least at this court level, he won. his name is on the ballot. but there's all this other stuff in there. what is the reaction right now? >> i believe the reaction will be split. i am already hearing they are relieved -- i keep looking down at my phone because i'm told we'll get a statement any second. they were bracing for a loss. they were going to file it immediately. i spoke to someone who thought it was likely that he would lose this case. there is a sense of relief there. when you talk about her finding, this conclusion that he did engage in an insurrection that will rub people, including former president trump, the wrong way. why they were so confident if they lost today this would be overturned on appeal. they pointed to the similar case that is were in new hampshire, in michigan as well and minnesota. and the fact those cases had never made it to trial. they were dismissed before hand. that trump had not been convicted and he was not even charged with the crime of insurrection. again, the judge here concluding he was engaged in the insurrection because of his words inciting supporters. so that is a little bit of a split there in what they had originally argued. the other interesting part, they had accused this judge of being politically biased. something we have heard in these cases but they pointed to the fact she had made this $100 donation to a liberal group that was formed after january 6 and one of their causes was because of january 6 they were formed. they said they believe she was tainted. her ruling shows that he is staying on the ballot following what she believed to be the letter of the law there. interesting to see how this is going to break. i am looking for that reaction specifically to that incitement of the insurrection, supporters that engaged in the insurrection. that is something that will be key here. >> all right. as you get more information, i will go back to you. i'm looking down to underline another point here. we'll be going back. i want to bring republican strategist alice jordan in with evan perez. so, evan, what is your takeaway now that you've had a few more minutes to go through this? is, as you can imagine, trump's reaction, the language was intended to cause imminent violence. again, if were you to take pages 93, 94, 95, and that was your only ruling, twobl the most damning thing a court has issued about trump yet. >> that's right, erin. the fact this case even got this far has been a surprise to everybody. everybody thought that like the courts in michigan and minnesota and new hampshire that these things would be thrown out simply because, you know, we've never had something like this, right? we've never had a presidential candidate, leading presidential candidate, face disqualification because of this question whether he engaged in insurrection. this was certainly a big test and it was surprising this judge wanted to hear this challenge but also held multiple days hearings and here, what she's doing, is going on, frankly, one of the thinnest pieces of technicalities to say her hands are tied and she really goes -- i'll read you a part where she says near the end in the final paragraph, that, you know, she says, the court agrees there are persuasive arguments on both sides. the court holds in the absence of the president of the list of positions to which the amendment applies. this is the 14th amendment. combined with the fact section 3 specifies the disqualifying oath to one of support for the constitution. she points out that when you're president, you are swearing an oath to preserve, protect and defend, so what she's saying is because those words are slightly different from what others would spare when they take the oath, it doesn't apply to the president of the united states and so that's the reason why she is ruling this way and, frankly, the things ryan and you have been talking about does sort of show she was leaning all the other way until this one technical. >> i think if i were donald trump and in his camp, they should be still worried. the way this is set up on appeal is everything is locked into place where it potentially disqualifies him but for the technicality, the supreme court of colorado could say, no, that's way too narrow a reading. >> alice, lucy kafanov in front of the court spoke to voters earlier just ahead of the decision to get their reaction and here is some of what they told her. >> there has been a process for 200 years on how to do this, and this is not the way. >> i feel like if you're in trial for anything, let alone felonies, you shouldn't be on the ballot. >> so, alice, how does this play out with gop voters especially in the party primary where when you read through this you can obviously see people like chris christie, of course, grabbing on to some of the substance of this ruling. >> erin, there's no disputing the culpability with what happened on january 6th and it was uncalled for, unacceptable and many say un-american. in terms of this lawsuit, the courts repeatedly, this is the third time, almost the fourth time, this is not the venue or the avenue in a legal way to go about having donald trump face the consequences. many republicans are extremely frustrated with the fact donald trum