down in her new, not yet furnish irned home. the team is exhausted. >> "the whole story" this sunday, 9:00 p.m. eastern pacific right here on cnn. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. tonight.ts now. breaking news. a colorado judge has ruled donald trump can be on the ballot, but also says he engaged in the january 6th insurrection. plus georgia prosecutors now want trump in court less than three weeks after the republican national convention and just three months before the 2024 election. of course, a reminder, that is a trial that will be televised. also tonight advertisers are fleeing from elon musk's x, as he himself is facing backlash over his anti-semitic posts, from many of the biggest companies in america. i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source." tonight, donald trump has survived what was the most serious attempt to force him off the ballot in the primaries. a colorado judge says he can't stay on the ballot there. this is also the first time that a judge has determined that donald trump, the former president, engaged in insurrection. e i want to read you the language. the judge says that trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. so, why did denver district court judge sarah wallace keep him on the ballot because of the quote you just heard there? she said that's because the constitution's insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to presidents. tonight the trump campaign is applauding this decision not to remove him from the ballot, but no mention there about the extension there, those hundred of pages the judge had tying the former president to january 6th. i am joined now by the attorney who represented donald trump in this case and also is colorado's former republican secretary of state, scott guess letter. scott, thank you for being here tonight. have you spoken to the former president? what was his reaction to this ruling? >> i have not spoken with him, but obviously we've spoken with the legal team. and we're pretty satisfied with the outcome. >> and is this something you expect the other side -- we do expect the plaintiffs to appeal it here. if that happens, what's your argument going to be to the colorado supreme court? >> well, i'm almost certain that the plaintiffs are going to appeal this case. we'll argue to the power of the supreme court a lot of the same arguments we made before, which is, you know, the textual and the historical analysis of the 14th amendment, especially, you know, 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 courts 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 bitten usual for her to spend a lot of time talking about that and then at the end rule that the 14th amendment didn't apply. >> why do you think she didn't have that -- why do you think, scott, that the judge here did add those 100 pages of her, you know, going into detail about the role that she believed your client played in january 6th? >> well, i think pretty clearly she is not a fan of president trump. but to be honest with you, normally courts will rule on jurisdictional issues, will rule on whether the law applies before going into all of that. so, it's really a backwards way of going into it compared to how courts normally do that. maybe she just wanted to be able to say that. i don't know her motivations along those lines. but at the end of the day, the voters of colorado are going to be able to make the choice, not a court. and we're thankful that she respected the role of voters and stopped the, sort of, efforts or at least the effort in colorado, which is antidemocratic, trying to strike president trump off the the ballot. >> given the fact she does go into such detail and is now the first judge to ever say that depa donald trump engaged in an insurrection, do you still really view this as a win here? >> you know, we can't stop the judge from saying things like that and still ruling in our favor. but i will tell you, she also said that the first amendment protections don't apply to president trump the way they do to everyone else. and we think that's flat wrong. so, there are a lot of problems with that analysis. maybe that will wind up contesting it. maybe not depending how the appeal comes out. at the end of the day, she ruled for us and properly so. and this, you know, is her opinion on what happened. but it has no legal authority at all because of her ruling. >> but i guess some people would read this and see where she says that he acted with specific intent to incite political violence directed at the capitol, that he not only knew about the potential for violence, but that he actively promoted it and incited it on january 6, 2021. and they'll say, okay, yes, he is staying on the ballot. but the judge also is tying him to all of this activity, saying that he was responsible the for what happened that day and asked how this is a victory for the trump team. >> look, part of the problem with that analysis is that what she did is she took the january 6th report, which was a wholly one sided approach used to attack president trump directly and politically. and she afforded that whole thing into the case itself. she viewed that as reliable, which is -- i think most reasonable people would view that as absurd. she relied on that -- >> there are people who would not agree with that, right, scott? >> i'm sorry? >> yes, there are some people who do not like the january 6th report. there are a lot of people who believe its findings. i saw you making this argument in court, saying you didn't believe that should be something the other side was basing their argument on here. is there anything, i guess, in the facts that she's laying out here in the statements she's laying out here that you dispute about trump's behavior on that day? >> absolutely. he did not act with intent or specific intent at all. we thought the evidence was very clear, that he made efforts to ensure -- he authorized the national guard, to make sure that they were available to prevent this type of violence fu. if you look at his tweets -- >> he didn't authorize the national guard that day. >> he did. he did. >> well, ckash patel, his forme aide testified that, as one of your witnesses here. but when he was asked for any documentation or any evidence that trump had done that, he didn't provide any. >> yeah, well, there were two other -- there was a second corroborative witness, katrina pearson. and in fact, the plaintiffs -- they're called pe tishers -- >> katrina pearson didn't work in the white house. >> let me finish. allow me to finish. a tweet from an adviser to president trump that ashley referenced president trump's efforts to authorize the national guard. i mean, it was their own evidence that they brought in that referenced that. so, i don't think it's appropriate to say that he never authorized. that's just not fair. and i don't think the evidence leans in that direction. i thought we put out pretty strong evidence. and she can say she doesn't believe people. but just because there's not a specific written document doesn't mean that it didn't happen. and frankly, part of the problem with this entire hearing was that we didn't even have the time or the ability to send out subpoenas and get this type of witness testimony and look at other type of documents to be able to make our case. so, we were very limited on what we were able to do. so, to be able to say you didn't have enough or enough documents, part of that was the truncated or compressed process, the lack of our ability to compel people to talk to us, the lack of our ability to get documents unless someone volunteered them to us. so, there were problems along the lines of the process itself. we thought there was very strong evidence. >> this has been investigated time and time again, including by this committee. donald trump himself did not testify here. he blames nancy pelosi for calling the national guard that day, even though it was in his authority. but i do -- i looked at what you said on the first day of this trial. you said you believe the judge was biased and she should recuse herself. do you feel differently based onts outcome tonight? >> what i said initially is she had contributed money to an organization that was specifically dedicated towards removing politicians, that they claimed -- that this group claimed -- engaged in an insurrection. so, the very purpose of the organization she contributed to was the decision that showed her support. >> before she was on the enbch, right? >> well, not kuwait. he had already applied and i believe she had been nominated but not yet appointed. but it was within the past year. whether you're on the bench or not, you look at a year as a rough deadline for viewing things in the past. it was still pretty fresh. we had deep concerns about that. i'm not necessarily here to relitigate that about the judge. at the end of the day, you know, we're respectful that the judge made the right decision. i understand she threw a lot of shade on president trump, and we're not happy about that. and we disagree with it. but at the end of the day -- and we're respectful of this -- that she's respecting the democratic processes. >> are you saying that you accept the ruling but you're rejecting her findings here? it seems like you're having it one way and also the other. >> not at all. i mean, we accept her jurisdictional, her conclusion that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency based on its plain text and the history as well. we certainly accept that. the other stuff she wrote in there frankly is not jermaine to her decision. attorneys will call that superfluous language that didn't really make a determination had on how she ruled. at the end of the day, she said that. we disagree strongly with that. but she also ruled in our favor. and at the end of the day, that's what we're satisfied about, that president trump will have the opportunity, like everyone else, to make his case and that voters will be able to have the opportunity to vote for him if he want to. that's what democracy is about. >> still quite a scathing ruling, saying he acted with intent to incite political violence. sc scott, the attorney in this case, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you for having me. also here tonight is ben ginsburg, a top republican attorney who has represented four republican presidential candidates and played a central role in the 2000 florida recount. ben, i'm so glad to have you here tonight. b what do you make of what you just heard from trump's attorney on this case, that they accept the ruling itself that trump can stay on the ballot but not, you know, the 100 pages the judge says here, that trump engaged in an insurrection. >> well, scott is not the first lawyer to take the things that he likes in an an opinion and say that it's gold and reject what he doesn't like as pure garbage. that's, kind of, the way lawyers work. what's interesting about this case is the overall perspective that it brings. you now have one judge finding trump was guilty of insurrection. you had cases in a couple of other states where they had not reached that. but what this tells you is that it's an ongoing issue that will be brought up between now and the election and maybe even after the election. and there is a need for some sort of definitive ruling, i think, by the u.s. supreme court to bring some closure to this. >> do you think it ultimately -- i mean, even scott gessler himself said they believe the other side will appeal this, go to the colorado supreme court, and then eventually the supreme court. do you think it ultimately goes there? >> well, i do. and i think it needs to. my guess is the way it needs to go up is not a case like the colorado case, but where donald trump is actually denied a spot on the ballot. and that will be the posture of the case that goes to the supreme court. it's worth noting that in primaries, parties have a great deal of discretion under legal precedent to pick their nominees the way they want to. it gets different for a general election. as i say, i think a court keeping trump from a position on the ballot is a case that does have to go to the supreme court. >> just remarkable to see that she found his actions unlawful in this court ruling. ben ginsburg, as always, thanks for your time tonight. we have more on this breaking news. a judge saying that trump can stay on the ballot in colorado but did engage in insurrection, the first time we have ever seen that. also, a new trial request date is in on another trump case. the fulton county district attorney wants his georgia trial to start only months before the election. plus elon musk, no stranger to controversy, but tonight could be a turning point. we'll tell you more next. donald trump will be on the ballot in colorado, but a court did just find that the republican front runner, quote, engaged in insurrection and tried to hang onto power through unlawful means. this is the first time any court has determined that trump engaged in insurrection. the impact of this ruling goes far beyond just the printing of a primary ballot in a state that no republican has won since 2004. i'm joined bea fair of political veterans, jamal simmons, and scott jennings, who worked with former president george w. bush. scott, thanks for being here tonight. you know, as ben was pointing out, you know, every attorney takes part of a ruling that they like and runs with it, and the other part they don't like, not necessarily. how do you make a judge finding your client ask inciting an insurrection a win given he's the front runner to be the next potentially republican candidate for president. >> well, look, i mean, not getting thrown off the ballot is a good thing. by the way, i think democrats dodged a huge bullet. had they thrown donald trump off the ballot, had a single judge done that tonight, donald trump, republicans, even his opponents, would probably be going crazy tonight and doing whatever they do when these legal things occur. the reality is on the insurrection talk and on the january 6th talk, most voters have heard it all before. we heard it from the january 6th committee. they watched it with their own eyes. they know what they know. they believe what they believe. i'm not sure what a judge says about it is going to change what people already know. if i were the trump people, i would probably be happy. and secretly, i suspect the democrats are probably happy about this too. >> are democrats happy about this? >> i don't know if democrats are happy writ large. i think scott may be right about this point. we sit at a precipice as a country, where you have these folks who really don't have confidence in the system, don't have confidence in the institutions. i feel if we deprive donald trump from being op thn the bal it would be more fuel for the attacks. the president is going to litigate it. outside groups are going to litigate it. we're going to see president trump on trial for a big part of his campaign. i think there are a lot of things that highlight what's wrong with the trump form of the government and the maga movement. >> scott, when you look at this, and the fact he is still going to be on the ballot, this is not the first tame we've seen this attempt. but in other states where this has happened in other groups, not the one that sued here in colorado. other groups have tried to do this, the cases were dismissed. this was actually a trial, where the judge heard from the defense but also both sides, testimony from january 6th officers. what do you make of the fact that she did include so much what he did on that day in this ruling? >> well, obviously she's looking ahead to possible appellate work here. maybe this does wind up in the supreme court. maybe the supreme court winds up, sort of, clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment here. maybe we need that because obviously it's never been tested and we don't really have a process for this. i ultimately think, though, the right place for this to be decided is at the ballot box. donald trump did what he did, and you can either think that's good or think that's bad or think it's overblown or think it's not been blown up enough. but the american people will get a chance to decide this. the democrats are banking it's going to help joe biden win re-election. republicans are banking they're going to be vindicated here. ultimately i think throwing him off the ballot, even if you've got a long paper trail, as you point out, kaitlan, would make republicans feel like they were deprived of the opportunity. and democrats also deprived of the opportunity to make the ultimately political decision. >> well, i mean, jamal, if you were inside the white house, would you advise them to be using this, what the judge has found here in these 100 pages? >> there's a lot of fuel here for the fire. so, the judge put a lot of things in there. it's important for us to have a record of this, not just going into the campaign, but as a society people stood up and said what donald trump did was wrong, not calling the guard in, letting this go on for so long, capitol police being in trouble and not helping, being assaulted and not helping. i think it's incredible important. so, the white house -- i don't know if i would say breathed a sigh of releaf, as scott just said, but i think we've got a lot of work to do as democrats and as a country. >> jamal simmons, scott jennings, as always, thank you both, but especially on a friday night. i should note prosecutors in georgia have just submitted august 5, 2024, another potential campaign. they say august 5, 2024, is when prosecutors in georgia want donald trump's election interfer interference trial to start. of course that is three months before the election kicks off. it's two and a half weeks after the republican nominating convention, where trump very well could be anointed his party's presidential nominee. fulton county district attorney fani willis has already said this trial could go on for a very long time. >> i believe the trial will take many months. and i don't expect that we will conclude until the winter or the very early part of 2025. >> of course this is also a trial that is expected to be televised because it's happening in state court, not in federal court. trump's lawyers tonight say they are going to oppose this date. i'm joined now by the former u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia, michael moore. michael, thank you for being here. obviously this is all up to the fulton county judge, scott mcafee. does it seem like a reasonable time frame to you to start in august, in a trial in a case that is expansive as this one? >> well, i'm glad to be with you. i will just say, i think it's probably one of the most unreasonable requests that i've seen lately coming from the d.a.'s office in this case. there is a lot of noise around trying to have a case that's not political. i heard the d.a. say that they don't take the politics into play. that's just not reality. and to somehow try to take this case, which they have acknowledged will last some five months or more and the judge thinks maybe eight months, and to pull the republican candidate off the campaign trail or require the sit-in trial, basically rushing his case, compared to other defendants who have been sitting in jail waiting on trials in fulton county. i think it stinks of politics. i'm not saying the public doesn't have a right or an interest in s