around the rammed of rapid report forces. take a look. >> as the sunsets, our situation becomes more precarious. despite all the insu assurancese were given. 10:00 at night still hour and a half before our destination. every moment that we are delayed it gets more and more interest.. and delayed again. and again. and again. luckily, we manage to get in touch with a distant cousin of my father's who allows us to bed down in her new not yet furnished home. the team is exhausted. we need to get some sleep. >> the whole story this sunnyvale, 9 p.m. the source with kaitlan clines starts now. >> straight from the source, breaking news as a colorado judge resumed that drumpled can be on the ballot but he also engaged in the january 6th insurrection. now prosecutors want trump in court just three modify before the 2024 election. of course a reminder that is a trial had will be telg advised. also tonight, advertisers are fleeing fromee lon musk's x. as he is facing backlash from his antismettic posts from many of the biggest companies in american. i'm kaitlan clines collins ands the source. tonight donald trump has survived what is the most sears attempt to force him off the ballot in proirms. a colorado judge has determined he can remain on the ballot there. i want to read you the exact wording of the capitol with the purpose of descrurpting the electoral certification. so why did denver district court judge sarah wallace keep him on the ballot? us that because the insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to presidents. applauding this, not to remove him from the ballot, the hundreds of pages the judge had trump tide to the insurrection. former republican secretary of state scott gessler. scott thank you for being here tonight. have you spoken to the former president? what was his reaction to this ruling? >> so 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 i mean the other side do you 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 colorado supreme court a lot of the same arguments we made before which was the text churl and historic arguments, considering the fact that the way our constitution is set up, the way the republic is set up, we shouldn't have courts striking people from the ballot. we're also going to fully take on the court's erroneous argument that president trump engaged in an insurrection, we think that's flat out wrong, contrary to the evidence. it was unusual 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 scott that she did -- the judge here didd add those 100 pages of her, you know, going into detail? about the role that she believed your client played in january sixth? >> well, i think pretty clearly she is not a fan of president trump. but to be honest with you normally, courts will rule on the jurisdictional issues, whether or not the rule applies before going into that. it is sortrt of a backwards wayf going into it compared to how courts normally do that. maybe she just wanted to say that. i don't know her motivation 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. we're thankful she respected the rorole of voters, antidemocratic to strike president trump off the ballot. >> but begin the enact she does go into such detail and is now the first judge to ever say that 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 reply toto president trump the way they do to everyone else, we think that's flat wrong. there are a lot of problems with that analysis. maybe that will wind up contesting it, maybe not, depend on 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. >> i guess some people would read this and see where she says that he acted with specific intent to night political violence directed at the capital, that he not only knew about the intention for violence but he activity incited it on january 6th, 2021. she says yes he is staying on the ballot but the judge is also tying him to all this activity, saying he was responsible for what happened that day and ask how this isn't victory for the trump team? >> look, part of the problem with that analysis is that what she did is she took the january sixth report which was a wholly one-sided approach, used to attack president trump directly and politically and she imported that whole thing into the case itself. she viewed that as reliable which i think most reasonable people would view that as absurd. she relied o n that to make some of those decisions. >> but some people that -- >> i'm sorry. >> there are some people who don't like the january 6th report, some who believe its findings. i see you making this argument in court, you don't believe that should be something the other side is basing their argument on here but is there anything -- is there anything i guess in the facts that she's lying out here and the statements she's laying out here that you dispute about trump's behavior that day? >> absolutely. did he not act with int intend r specific intent at all. the evidence is clear he authorized the national guard to make sure they were available to prevent this type of violence. if you look at his tweets and statements that day -- >> he did not authorize the national guard that day. >> he did, he did. >> cash patel his former aide testified that as one of his witnesses there but when he asked for any documentary evidence that trump can that he didn't provide any. >> there was a second corroborate ra tiff witness katrina -- > she didn't speak about the white house -- >> let me finish. a tweet, from an advisor to president trump, that authorized president trump efforts to authorize the national guard. it was their own evidence that they brought in that referenced that. i don't think it is appropriate to say he never authorized. i don't think that's fair, i don't think so the evidence leans in that direction. i think we put on pretty strong evidence. she can say she doesn't believe some people but just because there wasn't some specific document doesn't mean it didn't happen. time or ability to send out subpoenas and git get this typef evidence to make this case. we were very limited to be able to do, the fact that you didn't have enough documents, part of that was the truncated or compressed process, the lack of ability to get people to talk for us, the lack of ability to get documents unless someone volunteered them to us. we thought there was very strong evidence. >> this has been ve investigated time and time again including by this committee. donald trump didn't testify here. he blamed nancy pelosi for calling the national guard even though it was in his prerogative. you believe the judge was biased and she should recuse herself. do you feel differently based on this outcome tonight? >> well i mean what i said initially, she had contributed money to an organization that was specifically dedicated towards removing removing polits that this group claimed geand id in invox. insurrection.she had been applie she had been nominated not appointed. plus i t was within the past year. whether or not you are on the bench, if you look at this as a year as a rough deadline in viewing things in the past and it was still pretty tresh so wee had deep concerns about that. i'm not here to religament that- relitigate that. we are not happy with that and we disagree with it. but at the end of the day she at least and we're respectful of this that she's respecting the democratic processes. >> are you saying you accept the ruling but you're rejecting her findings here? it seems like you're having it one way and also the other. >> hmm not at all. 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 germane to her decision. courts, attorneys will call that dick at a, in other words, it is sort of superfluous access language that didn't make a determination 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, you know, 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 they want to. and that's what democracy is about and that's what the judge respected and we appreciate it. >> still a scathing ruling that he acted with intent to night violence. scott kessler thank you for your time tonight. thank you for having me. >> also ben ginsberg a top attorney who played a central role in the 2000 florida recount. he knows a thing or two about elections. ben i'm so glad to have you here tonight. what do you think you heard from trump's attorney in this case, they accept the ruling that trump can stay on the ballot but not the 100 pages of what the judge says here that trump engaged in an insurrection? >> well, scott is not the first lawyer to take the things he likes in an opinion and say it's gold. and to reject what he doesn't like as pure garbage. i mean that's kind of the way lawyers work. but what's interesting about this case, is the overall perspective that it brings. you now have one judge finding that trump was guilty of insurrection. you had cases in a couple of other states where they have not reached that. but what this tells you is that it's an ongoing issue that will be brought up between now andd 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 said it could go to the ultimately the u.s. supreme court, do you believe it ultimately goes there? >> i think it needs to. the way it goes 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 p posture f the case. attorneys have a legal precedent to take their nominees the way they want to. it gets different for a scwhrenl election. the court keeping trump from a position on the the ballot is a case that does have to go to the supreme court. >> just remarkable that she found his actions unlawful in this ruling, ben ginsberg as always thank you for your time tonight. >> thanks kaitlan. >> trump can stay on the ballot in colorado but did engage in insurrection. first time we have ever seen that. also a new trial case ruling is in, only months before the election. plusee lon musk no stranger to controversy but to t this s poit cocould be a a question.n. wewe will see ththat next. >> donald trump will be on the ballot in colorado, but a judge just found that the republican front runner engaged in insurrection and tried to hang on to power by unlawful power. this impact of this ruling goes far beyond the printing just of a primary ballot in a state that no republican has won since 2004. i'm joined by a paver political opts, scott jennings who works for former president george h.w. bush. as ben was pointing out, every attorney takes part of a ruling they like and runs with it, the other part not necessarily. how do you think nighing a insurrection a win, to the front runner of potentially republican candidate for president? >> not getting thrown off the ballot is a good thing. had then thrown donald trump off the ballot had a single judge done that tonight, donald trump, republicans, even his opponents would be doing what they do, whenever these legal things do occur. i think the democrats dodged a huge bullet. most voters have heard it before. we heard it from the january 6th committee. they watched it from their own eyes, they know what they know. i'm not sure what a judge has to say about it is going to add too many opinions. if i would be the trump people i'd be happy and secretly i suspect the democrats are happy too. >> are the democrats happy about it? >> i don't know if the democrats are happy about it but i believe scott might be right about this at this point. we have force et cetera of folks who really don't have confidence in the system, don't have confidence in the institutions and d i do feel if we deprive trump of being on the ballot at this point it would be more fuel for their attacks. we're about to have a campaign where we're going to litigatee all of this, outside groups are going to litigate it, we are going to see president trump on trial for a bunch of this campaign. a lot of things highlight what's wrong with the form of government and the the mega movement. i don't think a clerical designation would be the right way to go. >> the fact that he is going to still be on the ballot this is not the first time that we've seen this attempt but other states where this has happened, other groups, not the one that sued here in colorado but other groups tried to do this, where this was dismissed or we're not addressing that, the judge heard from the defense but also both sides testimony from january 6th officers, what do you think of the fact that she did include so much of what he did on that day in this ruling? > well, obviously she's lookg ahead to possible appellate work here. i mean 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 and 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 is the right place to do this is the ballot box. donald trump did what he did, can you think that's good, bad, overblown or not blown up enough. the american people are getting a chance to decide this. the democrats are banking it's going to help joe biden in winning this, or the republicans trump. as you point out candidate, would make republicans feel deprived of the opportunity and democrats also deprived of the opportunity to make the ultimate political decision. >> jamal would you advise them to be using this? what the judge has found here on these 100 pages? >> well, there's a lot of fuel here for the fire. right? 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, there are people who stood up and said what donald trump did was wrong, not calling the guard in, letting this go on for so long, capital police being in trouble and not helping, being assaulted and not helping. i think it's incredibly important. the white house i don't know if they breathed a sigh of relief as scott just said but we have a lot to do as a country to make sure this doesn't happen again. >> thank you both, especially on a friday night. i should note prosecutors in georgia just submitted august 5th, 2024, another potentially update, they say august 5th, 2024 is when prosecutors in georgia want donald trump's election trial to start. august 5th is just three months before the election kicks off. it's also two and a half weeks after the republican nominating, fanni wilson has also said this trial could go on for a long long time. >> i believe the trial will take many, many months. i don't expect that we will conclude until the winter or very early 2025. >> this is also a trial that is expected to be televised happening in state court not federal court. trump's lawyers say they are going to oppose this date. i'm joined by the judge for the middle section of illinois, scott, he decides to set this trial date, do you think it's a reasonable time frame for you to start in august that trial in a case that is as expansive as this one? >> well i'm glad to be with you. i would just say i think it's probably one of the most unreasonable requests that i've seen lately comes 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 that i've heard the davmed.a. say, that is not real, to somehow take this case the case that they've acknowledged will last some five months or so, the judge thinks maybe eight months and to pull the republican candidate off the campaign trail and required to sit in trial and basically rushing his case compared to other defendants who have been sitting in jail waiting on cases in fulton county, i think trarchgly stinks. i think it's unlikely, given the trial schedule that's already set in courts all over the country now, i think there are three or four trials set already. and to somehow suggest this state trial should be horseshoed in or shoehorned into the case, i don't think is serious. i don't think it is a serious recommendation, other than 19 co-defendants on trial at the same time is a serious consideration. i think it's a lot of puffery, for people who would like to cheer on the local prosecutor in this case. i have to believe in my heart of hearts surely they knew that when they asked the judge to set the trial in august. >> they don't agree, they watchet to make their argument against the state in person. why do you think it's important for them to do so in person in front of judge scott mcafee? >> this kind of action falls right into trump's strap and i think the state's fell into his trap here and that's to make it look like it's a political persecution. so think about the optics of trying to make him sit in a courtroom when you're letting the democratic presidential candidate run around the country and campaign and talk about how the former president was. so it plays into his optics and he has seen most of these trials as much campaign as he has courtroom. and so i think they want to get out in front of it. they want to talk publicly about it and they want to sort of make that argument to the public especially since these hearings are televised in the state court so it gives them basically free media all over the world to talk about how he's being mistreated and that's been as we've seen based on the polling and everything that's been red meat for his supporters. so that's a chance for them to throw him a big steak. >> i was talking to a trump campaigner who says it would not hurt him. michael moore thank you for your time. >> great to be with you.u. elon musk has been facing blow back after he posted a conspiracy, the white house is even weighing in and condemning that post. that story after a quick break. you want to be able to provide your child with the tools or resources they need. with reliable internet at home, through the internet essentials program, the world opened up. fellas, fellas. that's how my son was able to find the hidden genius project. we wanted to give y'all the necessary skills to compete with the future. kevin's now part of this next generation of young people who feel they can thrive. ♪ ♪ >> an antisubmittic conspiracy theory that inspired the greatest attack against jewish people here in the u.s., is endorsed by elon musk. he shared the message on twitter, to tell the social media platform tonight that they have had enough. musk on wednesday went this. quote you have said the actual truth. that was in response to a post that claimed jewish committees support i'm quoting now hatred against whites. that same conspiracy theory triggered the house of life,