far as the legal case is concerned. >> i mean the second these allegations dropped, you had a number of opinions all across the spectrum, particularly about somebody who was so-called a late reporter or a delayed reporter of all these things. remember she was trying to get within the window of the new law in new york that says an adult survivor of sexual assault or abuse had a very slim window, and she was trying to get through that and had a very extensive complaint against this person. but there were no criminal charges that had been filed. they ran the gamut. the fact this has happened now, the day after, after his counsel has already said that she was in it for a payday prior to this, and he had been for the past six months threatened with some sort of action like this. she withdrew a threat and then came back with this lawsuit. there are going to be a lot of questions now about what's in the actual settlement and whether it's a complete and total muzzle for her now, which it likely will be anytime you settle a case like this. >> yeah, huge question about this. just as a reminder, diddy is wealthy, extremely powerful still too this day, after 30 years in this industry. something like this, i think, probably has already done some damage. but i think they were clearly concerned it could do more if it were to continue, laura. i know you've got a lot to get to in your show. have a good one. >> have a good one, and happy early birthday abby phillip, everyone. >> thank you. >> she'll be 25, okay? there you go. a surprise ruling and a big victory for donald trump, but what happens now? tonight on laura coates live. remember that phrase "no one is above the law"? how about this one? how does it go again? let me get it right. if the president does it, it's not illegal. it's starting to come back to you now, isn't it? well, today there's a new one for the history books. a colorado judge finding that donald trump incited an insurrection or intentionally engaged in behavior, and quote, therefore engaged in insurrection within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment, saying he acted with specific intent to disrupt the electoral college certification of president biden's electoral victory through unlawful means, specifically by using unlawful force and violence, something that, well, we were watching the day it happened, january 6th. >> we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> the judge saying trump did, quote, everything in his power to fuel anger before january 6th. by the way, if he were anybody else, he would have been disqualified from office. but because he was the president, that law does not apply. the judge saying the 14th amendment insurrectionist ban does not actually apply to presidents because the oath the president takes is not the same as the oath for officers of the united states. this sounds a lot like someone is above something, doesn't it? almost exactly like since the president did it, it's not illegal. we talk about whiplash. if you're confused, you're not the only one around these parts. up till now, we'd heard primarily two arguments in this case, not unlike we heard in places like michigan and minnesota, who already decided to keep trump on the ballots. one of the arguments was it should be up to the voters, not any court to tell you who is on the ballot. the other argument, since trump had never been charged with insurrection and there had been no legal conclusion he actually engaged in it, then there's no reason to take him off the ballot because of due process and that presumption of innocence we all hold dearly. today the judge did say that he did incite something and said it came down to what's called a technicality, if you will. if the founding fathers meant for the president to be removed by this mechanism, they would have clearly stated that. they mentioned officers of the united states. i want to dig in more here, though, because section 3 actually says this. who, having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state. they didn't say the president. you see that? it's almost as if -- and this is something i've heard a lot recently -- there's a two-tiered system of justice. i want to get right to noah bookbinder, executive director for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. the organization also was involved in this very case in colorado. noah, thank you for being here today. a lot of you have been following this for a long time. we knew about minnesota and michigan, but colorado was different because they had an actual 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 why the judge said so? >> i mean, 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. our plaintiffs are going to appeal that. that's a -- that is a legal -- strictly legal ruling that the colorado supreme court is going to have its own chance to evaluate. but the thing that was unique 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. i think that's the most significant takeaway. >> given that takeaway, you will appeal. >> yes. >> you've got a pretty thin window, though, because of course ballots will be printed january 5th i think is the date in colorado. so the window is very small when you can appeal, have that be resolved and then the ballots still printed. is there enough time to get that argument made and maybe resolved? >> there absolutely is enough time. there is a legal procedure in place in colorado to resolve these questions quickly, understanding that ballots need to be printed. so it skips intermediate appeal. it goes directly up to the colorado supreme court. in other cases where people have been challenged as disqualified on ballots, not presidents usually, but the colorado supreme court has taken them up very quickly. we expect that to happen here, so we're going to move quickly. i think we've had a lot to be very encouraged at in what came out of the ruling today. >> the fact that -- and i know you pointed out the idea there's obviously an appellate court. their job is not to relitigate the facts but think about the legal arguments being made. the judge seems to have teed up in a way by having a very narrow ruling. it's a long opinion by the way. but a narrow ruling to suggest it's because he was the president and the language of section 3 does not contemplate a president. do you think that the colorado supreme court on appeal, or maybe even the supreme court of the united states or other courts that might look at these issues over time, are going to buy that, that it is narrow enough to exclude -- to keep him on the ballot? >> i think it's been instructive that really top legal scholars across the political spectrum, tonight judge j. michael lieu dig came out very strongly. he came out today and said that while he agreed with the factual parts of the judge's decision, he feels very strongly that the president is an officer of the united states and that that part of the judge's decision was incorrectly ruled. a leading conservative law professors who have studied this in great depth reached the same conclusion. so we think there's a lot of weight of opinion on the other side of this one and a real shot to see that go the other way, particularly given that ruling supported in so much fact that donald trump did incite an insurrection. >> so based on that, i mean this is colorado. there's already been some litigation in places like minnesota and michigan. they did not have a trial. procedural issues kept them from resolving it fully. but are you going to bring litigation in other states because there are 50 of them? >> the first thing we're focused on doing is getting a win in colorado. that's going to be the next step. we think we've got a large -- a large part of the way there today with, you know, the 102-page opinion. many, many pages really, you know, of zeroing in on why donald trump did incite insurrection, why things like the first amendment don't get him out of that, and we're going to be very focused on getting to that next point of having him excluded from the ballot in colorado. then, you know, we'll take it from there. >> by the way, why did you choose colorado? >> we chose colorado because it had a statutory system in place. it had laws that said voters can go to court to challenge a candidate who is not qualified. and you can get into court quickly, and if court finds someone not qualified, the secretary of state has to remove them from the ballot. so it's got that procedure. it's a fast procedure. it's a relatively early state in the presidential primary system, so you can get in there early. and we had these fantastic republican and unaffiliated plaintiffs who were willing to bring the case and make clear that this is not a partisan, political issue. this is about people who care about the constitution trying to protect our republic. >> a method to the litigation madness. 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, former january 6th committee. first of all, you've already heard, marcus, and you've heard obviously from noah as well. the january 6th committee report and the information that was gleaned and really shown to the country and the world was relied a lot by this judge. that was criticized by trump's counsel because they took a lot of issue with what was presented in those hearings. were you surprised it was relied on to the extent it was? >> no, i wasn't surprised at all. we trusted our process. we trusted we went where the facts took us. you heard arguments about bias from our committee and maybe the qualifications of our committee. but there were no assertions contrary to our actual findings of insurrection that former president trump incited this insurrection. and you saw the judge actually discuss that in her opinion, the reliability of our investigation and how methodical we were with it. and i think that it was a great confirmation of the work we did here today, and i was happy to see that she confirmed it. >> i mean you also had it -- you explicitly had it confirmed by one senator mitch mcconnell after the presentation of the evidence. listen to what he had to say. he was aware and confirmed it then. listen. >> the house accused the former president of, quote, incitement. that is a specific term from the criminal law. there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> and yet, rebecca, the holding tonight was that, well, because he was the president, he's not accountable under that letter of the law. >> that was the holding today, and i share marcus' view that this was a careful, detailed opinion that confirmed a lot of things that folks have been arguing about and addressed directly a lot of trump supporters' arguments in a context where there was due process, where there was a chance to cross-examine witnesses, where trump could put on witnesses and did. so all the due process you want. and after listening to many days of testimony, reviewing the relevant portions of the january 6th report, this judge found this was an insurrection. this was an insurrection, and donald trump was responsible for it. and those are powerful findings. however, the judge also looked at the text of section 3 in the 14th amendment, which obviously was written a long time ago. >> mm-hmm. >> and is inartfully drafted for these purposes, we might say. so she's struggling with this language that was designed for the civil war where lots of elected representatives had rebelled and they were trying to figure out what to do with them. so the president, abraham lincoln didn't. so the people drafting that weren't thinking about what just happened here. that's what makes it a hard question. so the judge, i think, carefully analyzed the language. she ended up going with an argument that had been out there, that had been made -- i heard it mainly by former u.s. attorney michael mukasey, who made pretty much this same argument. there are strong counter-arguments as well, but that's where she landed. >> marcus, we're talking about the validation of having this finding, but we can't look at it in a vacuum, can we? he's got criminal matters that are happening, including one involving january 6th. >> right. >> right here in washington, d.c. under judge chutkan, just to name one, right? the election subversion cases as well, includiing what's happenig in fulton county. >> speaking of parallel proceedings, it was pointed out in closing arguments, but former president trump argued for removal in the new york bank records case. and part of that argument for removal is he's an officer of the united states. but now in this, he's saying -- >> bingo. >> this was brought up by noah's team, and clearly wasn't persuasive for the court. but i would imagine on appeal, i would hammer that point home because you're making contrary arguments depending on the jurisdiction. and so while it may not be expressly stated in the 14th amendment, right, they're not being consistent with their arguments, at least to the court. >> i guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. we'll see what happens there. thank you so much. donald trump is on the ballot, so what does another candidate have to say about that? well, i'm going to ask one. jill stein is here next. my next guest has launched an unexpected bid for the white house. two-time green party presidential nominee jill stein is seeking the party's nomination in 2024, calling the current political system broken. she joins me for tonight's candidate interview. jill stein, thank you so much for being here this evening. we've got a lot to discuss tonight. i'm eager to get your opinion on so many things. i do want to get your reaction to this colorado 14th amendment ruling. the judge saying that donald trump, quote, engaged in an insurrection but will stay on the colorado ballot. do you agree with that? >> you know, i am not a legal expert, especially not in this area. this is the third case, as i understand it, to be decided in favor of allowing the voters basically to either accept or reject donald trump on the ballot. that sounds reasonable to me. i tend to err on the side of allowing voters to make decisions. but, again, you know, this is not my area of expertise at all. >> on that point, that was one of the big arguments that was raised. the question essentially came down to whose decision should it be, and should one's behavior foreclose that moment? we'll see what happens maybe other places. now to your bid for the white house because you've done this twice before, once in 2012, also 2016. you never cracked 2 million votes. you didn't receive a single electoral vote. why do you think the third time will end up differently? >> well, i think you can ask the voters why it is that they are clamoring for more choices. you know, when you don't have exposure, when you're not covered by the media, when there are all sorts of hoops, expensive hoops that you have to jump through as a grassroots campaign in order to even get on the ballot, there are all kinds of reasons why independents and third parties have a very steep, uphill climb. but, you know, the voters are clamoring for more choices, and i would say, you know, who is anybody to tell the voters that they don't deserve choices? this is really fundamental to our democracy, to our rights as voters, and to the integrity of our elections is to have those choices. >> there has been a lot of criticism about a two-party system for that very reason frankly, that when somebody who is not a part of the democrats or the republican party, they get a lot of criticism. they're accused of being a spoiler vote. in fact, you, yourself, was accused of that as well, accused of having taken away votes from hillary clinton in places like michigan and pennsylvania and wisconsin, where trump's victory margin was smaller than your total votes. when you hear this complaint based on what you've just said about who has the nerve essentially to tell the american voters who they can and cannot have as choices, do you think the criticism has been fair about yoyour entrance into the races? >> i think the criticism reflects a certain kind of arrogance that the establishment parties own your vote. they don't own your vote. they have to earn your vote. you know, the studies and the statistics are very clear that people who voted green almost, you know, two-thirds would not have come out to vote at all had there not been a green or someone with a green agenda been on the ballot. so it's completely invalid to suggest that those votes belonged to hillary clinton, and i think it reflects a kind of arrogance of the establishment parties to presume that voters owe them their votes. and i think that's part of what people are rebelling against now in clamoring for other choices. it's a record high 63% of voters now who are saying that the two-party system has failed them. you know, to look at the reaealy of people's lives now, you know, there's a lot to that where you have 60% -- over 60% living paycheck to paycheck, 1 in 4 are food-insecure. you have 40% of renters would are severely economically stressed. half of young people are saying that they are hopeless about the future, and in fact that they feel betrayed and abandoned by their government on really critical issues, including the climate collapse, which is accelerating towards us right now. so i think, you know, those are all reflections of the fact that people are really hungry for more choices and they want a real debate, which only happens when you have challengers on the ballot. and i think, you know, if you look at -- >> i hear you. >> sorry. go ahead. >> i was going to ask you one of the things you did leave out, which is going to be very top of mind for many voters right now, in addition to everything you just listed, has been the israel-hamas war. and a lot of voters right now particularly leaning in. you have been an outspoken critic of israel's ground operation in gaza. you have been very