Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Colorado Supreme Court Says, Trump Ineligible for Office, 2024 Ballot; Civil Rights Groups Sue Texas Over New Border Law. Aired 7- 7:30a ET

Aired December 20, 2023 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Voter contact or voter file. I highly suggest people read it, whether you agree or disagree with the Biden team's theory of the case.

Gabe, we appreciate it. Thanks, man.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And CNN This Morning continues now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They are weaponizing the annals of government, the architecture of government for political purposes. They're criminalizing politics, and that's what Trump is facing.

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We need elections we can trust. That we can believe in. That means, yes, unelected judges are not going to decide willy-nilly across the state who ends up on a ballot and who doesn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Well, good morning, everyone.

That was Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis reacting to the major news from overnight. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president in 2024. What this means for voters in Colorado and across the country. And later this hour we're going to hear from the organization behind this historic lawsuit.

HARLOW: This morning, civil rights groups are taking action against the state of Texas over the controversial new border law there.

And dozens of documents naming Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims and associates will soon be made public. What to expect from that.

This is hour of CNN This Morning starts now.

MATTINGLY: Well, a historic and unprecedented can be overused at times of this day and age, but here's a look at the front page headlines America is waking up to this morning. Donald Trump, Republican frontrunner, disqualified from the ballot in Colorado.

It is a stunning and, yes, historic ruling that could have huge implications for the 2024 presidential election. Trump is vowing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court just weeks before primary season kicks off.

HARLOW: Colorado Supreme Court decided Trump cannot be on the state's primary ballot because he engaged in an insurrection. They're citing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was ratified after the civil war.

The justices on the high court, a majority of them deciding that Trump directly participated in the plot to stop the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th.

MATTINGLY: Well, Trump didn't waste any time fundraising off the ruling. There's about 12 minutes after the news alerts hit, his campaign blasting out emails, asking for money, accusing Democrats of trying to keep Trump off the ballot to prevent him from beating President Biden.

We have team coverage of the courthouse in Denver to the campaign trail in Iowa, along with expert legal analysis.

Let's start off in Colorado with Lucy Kafanov outside of Colorado Supreme Court. Lucy, what's the feeling on the ground right now in the wake of this really, really stunning moment?

LUCY KAFANOV, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don't think anyone expected this, Phil and Poppy, the reaction here, surprising, remarkable, unprecedented, and the judges acknowledging that at the top of their opinion, writing about the weight and magnitude of this decision to disqualify and bar Donald Trump from the Colorado primary.

And even though this only impacts the state of Colorado, the implications could be national.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAFANOV (voice over): Former President Donald Trump kicked off the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado.

SEC. OF STATE JENA GRISWOLD (D-CO): We've never had a president inside an insurrection and then try to run for the presidency again.

KAFANOV: In an unprecedented decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified due to his actions on January 6th, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who, quote, engaged in insurrection to run for office.

The court writing, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.

DAVE WILLIAMS, CHAIR, COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY: We think this is an absurd ruling. KAFANOV: Colorado Republican Party Chair Dave Williams slamming the decision.

WILLIAMS: Donald Trump has not been charged nor convicted of insurrection and we shouldn't be making these types of decisions that take away people's right to vote.

KAFANOV: The Trump campaign vowing a swift appeal, saying, we have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.

Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

GRISWOLD: And I, of course, will follow whatever court order or decision is in place by the time that we certify the ballot.

KAFANOV: On the campaign trail, Trump's GOP rivals appearing to back him in denouncing the court's decision.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being President of the United States by any court. I think he should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country.

NIKKI HALEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We don't need to have judges making these decisions. We need voters to have make these decisions.

KAFANOV: And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis calling it abuse of judicial power and calling on the Supreme Court to reverse it.

Voters in Colorado offering mixed opinions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, that's great. He's a crook. So, good riddance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think court cannot decide who I'm voting for.

[07:05:00]

So, because it's my own decision, it's not the court's decision who I'm voting for.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAFANOV (on camera): Now, Poppy, it is very important to stress that this is not the final word. The Supreme Court here staying its decision until January 4th to allow the Trump team to appeal, and, of course, the Trump team already vowing to take this to the highest court in the land. Poppy?

HARLOW: Lucy, thank you very much for that reporting on the ground there.

MATTINGLY: Now to CNN's Jeff Zeleny and Des Moines, Iowa. Jeff, the Trump campaign, the rest of the Republican field, we heard from some of them up at the top of the show. How is everybody responding this morning?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Phil, the former president was uncharacteristically silent about this. The ruling happened just that a few minutes before he took the stage last night in Waterloo, Iowa. His supporters were talking about this but he did not mention it at all. His campaign, of course, though, is calling it un-American, as you heard there in Lucy's report.

But, really, what we feel is essentially the same playbook that we've seen throughout this year. Even his Republican rivals, from Chris Christie, to Nikki Haley, to Ron DeSantis, essentially are siding with Donald Trump. They're saying that the judges in courts should not weigh in on this.

So, what this reminds me of virtually exactly are the first indictments we saw earlier this year, the Alvin Bragg case in Manhattan, and then it is followed throughout the year. So, very, very similar feeling to the Republican wagons are being a circle around the former president, even from some of his rivals.

So, as we sit here in Iowa some 26 days before the voting begins in this presidential campaign, Donald Trump seems stronger than ever, at least for now. We will see as voters sort of absorb this news. But, certainly, last night, he had a lot of defenders.

MATTINGLY: Jeff, it's such a good point. The number of times I heard last night, the analog to the New York D.A. indictments and how the party reacted to that, the difference, of course, is, as you noted, 26 days until voters vote, until the caucus actually starts.

This comes as Nikki Haley was kind of having a burst to some degree, particularly in New Hampshire. Does this change the race at all?

ZELENY: We will see if it changes the race. I mean, certainly, he has a commanding lead of this race, and this really has become a race for second place. So, it's hard to imagine it changing that, except it crowds out all of the other news.

And we did talk to several Trump supporters. And take a listen to Julie Heiple. She really summed up the sentiment from many Trump admirers who are here in Iowa.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIE HEIPLE, TRUMP SUPPORTER: It's not right that they should take him off the ballot. It's what the people want. Isn't it odd that everything that he does, they attack him for, they file court proceedings against him, but the Democrats can get away with everything?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So essentially blaming Democrats, of course, that is a pretty broad brush here. Democrats locally or the Biden administration have nothing to do with this, of course. But those are true Trump supporters. The question is, there are many Republicans who have open minds and are interested in turning the page. They may be about half the party or slightly less. We will see if any of them speak up today. But, Phil, it really is reminiscent of so many chapters of the same book we've seen this year, and now election interference, once again, is Trump's rallying cry. Phil?

MATTINGLY: That's such a good point. I'd be stunned to hear any of them speak up against the president, former president today.

Jeff Zeleny, a great reporting. Thank you.

HARLOW: All right. Let's turn to our Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Okay, walk us through this. Why does the 14th Amendment apply here, and what got us to the Colorado Supreme Court?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Poppy, always a good idea to start with the actual Constitution itself. We're talking about the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 after the civil war. Section 3 tells us no person shall hold any office who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Makes sense, fairly straightforward.

But it gets a little more complicated when we get to the question of how does this work? If we jump ahead to Section 5 of the same 14th Amendment, it tells us that Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Congress here means the federal United States Congress. They can pass laws to enforce this, but they haven't done so in 150 years, which leaves us in a little bit of uncertainty. Nonetheless, the Colorado State Court has a state law proceeding under Colorado law that they can use in some circumstances, not specific to insurrection, on election questions.

HARLOW: It makes it different than the other states that have considered this.

HONIG: It does. It's one of the arguments that we heard. A state court judge held a five-day hearing back in October, November, primarily looked at the January 6th committee hearing. And that judge concluded an interesting ruling that, yes, Donald Trump did engage in insurrection.

However, the trial court judge said, the president somehow does not qualify as an officer of the United States. That took a little bit of verbal parsing, but that was the ruling. And therefore that judge ruled Donald Trump is still on the ballot because the president is not subject to the 14th Amendment.

[07:10:00]

And that's what landed us yesterday in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.

HARLOW: And what would likely land us before the high court of the country, before the Supreme Court on these questions of fact and the question of law here.

HONIG: Exactly. So, this is what happened yesterday in the Colorado Supreme Court. We have seven justices, notably, all of them appointed by Democratic governors. This was a four to three ruling, four in the majority. Their ruling was Donald Trump engaged in overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection. And, yes, president does count as an official. Therefore, the majority in the Colorado Supreme Court said, he's out, he's off the ballot.

The dissent here, I think, is also really interesting. Again, this was a four to three ruling. I think this is a really important quote from the dissent. One of the justices wrote, even if we're convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past, dare I say, engaged in insurrection, there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.

And it's important to get sort of the landscape here to understand why the Colorado decision that we saw yesterday is an outlier. If we look at the entire United States, there are a lot of these challenges. Colorado now stands alone. It's the only state that's thrown Donald Trump off the ballot. Six other states have rejected outright this type of challenge, and then in a dozen or so other states, colored yellow here, the plaintiffs, the people who've sued, have pulled back, withdrawn their lawsuit. So, Colorado is on an island, so to speak, at this point.

HARLOW: Can we just talk finally about -- what is said in the dissent is due process.

HONIG: Yes.

HARLOW: And as you pointed out earlier in the program, that is also part of the 14th Amendment. It is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Is that at the core of what the Supreme Court is going to decide here?

HONIG: Yes. So, next up, I think, in all likelihood, is the United States Supreme Court. This case, the hearing that happened was here in the district court, went right up to the Colorado Supreme Court. But really important to understand the U.S. Supreme Court, the big one, they can review rulings, even that came up through this state system.

Now, the way this stands at the moment is the Colorado Supreme Court said it's all on hold until January 4th. If, and it appears now to be when Donald Trump goes to the Supreme Court, it's all on hold until they decide. So, at the moment, nothing is final. The U.S. Supreme Court is almost certainly going to take this up.

And I think the crux of the focus here is going to be, do we know the process was a proper process followed? I don't think the Supreme Court's actually going to get into the question of did he engage in insurrection or not? I think they're going to be focused on due process.

HARLOW: Elie, thank you very much, really helpful. I appreciate it. Phil? MATTINGLY: Well, our coverage of this historic ruling continues this morning. Former Trump Attorney Tim Parlatore joins us next, what he thinks Trump's next move will be.

HARLOW: And right now in Maine, 14 counties are still in a civil state of emergency after that intense storm that swept through. Officials say there are nearly 100 roads closed because of the flooding, downed trees and power lines and destroyed infrastructure. At this hour, more than 280,000 customers in that state without power. Our crews assessing the damage in Maine's hard hit capital city, a live report ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN GRIMSLEY, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN COLORADO 14TH AMENDMENT CASE: I think we have a chance at the Supreme Court. First of all, Trump is going to have to convince the Supreme Court to take this case. And I can imagine the world in which the Supreme Court says this is pretty early on in the election cycle. Let's see how this plays out in some other states first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That was an attorney for the plaintiffs in the Colorado 14th Amendment case. A Trump campaign spokesman called the state's Supreme Court ruling, quote, a completely flawed decision and promised to swiftly file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Joining us now, former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore. Tim, we appreciate your time this morning.

To that point, do you see a chance that the Supreme Court ends up siding with the Colorado ruling last night?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: You know, I really don't. I read the decision last night and it was striking to me how little attention they paid to the federal statutes that are applicable here.

You know, Congress has enacted a statute. It's 18 USC 2383 that deals with insurrection. And that specifically is the statute that disqualifies one for public office. Andin, you know, one of the dissenters did point out that this is the proper procedure, but the majority essentially said, well, it doesn't say that's the only procedure so we can ignore it.

I do think that that statute is really where the Supreme Court is going to focus their attention and likely overturn this.

MATTINGLY: It's been striking that some of the biggest advocates for the 14th Amendment for moving forward on this have been kind of pillars or very respect to people in the conservative legal movement, including Judge Michael Luttig, who's been one of the biggest boosters of this idea. This is what he said last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG, FORMER JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT: Their opinion is unassailable under the objective law of the federal Constitution in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States ought to affirm this decision today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Tim, he also said that this court, in kind of framing itself as a textualist, originalist court, if that's the case, they would have to rule in favor or be supportive of the ruling last night. Do you disagree with that on its face? Is this more of a technicality issue than an actual issue of the original text?

PARLATORE: No, I do disagree with that. And I think that part of the problem is a lot of people look at this ruling through the lens of what their own personal political desires are. And the reality is, you know, like I said, there is an insurrection statute on the books. Nobody has been charged with it.

Several grand juries looked at this. They looked at it with all of the protesters. They looked at it with Donald Trump. One grand jury came close and they charged the members of the Oath Keepers with 18 USC 2384, seditious conspiracy, which as the Colorado Supreme Court correctly noted, sedition is one step below insurrection.

And so this is something that has been examined by the grand jury sitting in D.C. and has been specifically rejected.

[07:20:03]

So, for a Colorado Supreme Court to wade into this and say, we know better than the criminal grand juries who actually heard directly from the firsthand witnesses and first hand evidence, I don't think that that's something that's going to be sustainable.

MATTINGLY: But is that --

PARLATORE: And I also think it's a problem that when you have the courts -- sorry.

MATTINGLY: No, I was just going to ask, is that a threshold? I mean, I think the ambiguity to some degree is what leads to these differences of opinion, even those who may be ideologically aligned. Is it explicit anywhere that the threshold is a court -- there must be something that says explicitly by a court that insurrection happened?

PARLATORE: Yes. I mean, that's the thing, is that to disqualify somebody, you have to have a court that says there was an insurrection and that this person was a participant in the insurrection. And so when I look at it, I say there are courts that are well-equipped to study that question, and they're in D.C. There are grand juries who have studied this exact question, and they've rejected it. And so to then go around the country and have a whole bunch of state courts, state Supreme Courts, come to their own independent conclusions, that's something where you're going to have a significant split of inconsistent verdicts. You're going to have some states that say, oh, he's disqualified, and so therefore, he's not on the bout. Some that say, oh, no, this was not an insurrection.

And if you read the Colorado Supreme Court decision, they're saying that he is ineligible to be president. And let's say that this decision stands, but the other 49 states go the other way. And let's say he's elected, even though he isn't on the ballot in Colorado. Does this decision then empower the Colorado governor to say, well, he's an illegitimate president and so the federal government has no power over the state of Colorado? It's a problem. And this is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court is going to have to step in to at least set one single standard nationwide.

MATTINGLY: Yes, the lack of precedent here is both fascinating and probably slightly unsettling given the stakes.

I do want to ask you, to take a step back for a minute. When you look at the year ahead, not just an election year, but also the sheer number of cases, of dates, of filings, the Trump campaign officials, I think Susie Wiles, one of his top advisers, called it an absolute nightmare. Can you explain to people what are the next couple of months going to look like with all of this on the plate?

PARLATORE: Well, it's a complete disaster. Between all of the civil and the criminal cases, they're going to be doing everything they can, I suspect, to try to run out the clock, to try and push as many of these things out past November as they possibly can.

The D.C. January 6th case, I think that that one is already well on its way because of the Supreme Court, not only the Supreme Court potentially taking up the interlocutory issue, but also examining the applicability of the obstruction charge related to the January 6th case. Certainly, the Mar-Lago case, that one is going to get pushed out.

You got to remember, most criminal cases in the federal court, they take over two years to get to trial. The idea of trying to jam them all into an election season is something that is in and of itself unprecedented, and trying to jam multiple in is really a very unique circumstance.

So, I think that, really, what you're going to see is all of these aspects of the legal team is they're going to try and push things out past November. The challenge is going to be, if they come straight out and say it, as they have in the past, of let's adjourn this thing for over a year because we want to wait till after the election, that's going to get rejected.

But if you instead go to the judges and you say, look, these are all the things that are going on, this is what our bandwidth is, this is how many documents they just gave us, we're not able to be prepared for trial and the defendants rights are going to be substantively impaired by forcing them to go to trial before he's ready, that's something the judges will buy and they'll push it out a piece at a time. They'll push it out three, four months at a time, and they'll keep pushing it out past the election I suspect.

MATTINGLY: Yes. You know there's not a lot of precedent in terms of the timetable. There's also not a lot of precedent for the top Republican candidate to have 91 indictments against him. So, we're very uncharted territory here.

Tim Parlatore, we appreciate it, my friend. Thank you.

PARLATORE: It is. All right, thank you.

HARLOW: It was fascinating discussion showing just how complex this all is ahead.

Meantime, to Texas, where civil rights groups are going after a controversial new law in that state on immigration that makes it illegal to cross into the state, makes it a state crime. We'll take you live to the border.

MATTINGLY: And the death toll from an earthquake in China rose to 131 people last night. New video shows the destruction at the epicenter. This surveillance video shows people running out of a sports bar the moment the 5.9 earthquake struck.

[07:25:03]

You can see it right there.

Right now, rescuers are working to reach survivors in frigid 14-degree temperatures.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back. Two civil rights groups are suing Texas over its controversial new border law. It gives police power to arrest migrants and allows judges to remove them as authorities struggle to process a surge of migrants seeking across the border.

The ACLU and Texas Civil Rights Project argued the law is on constitutional and could lead to racial profiling.

MATTINGLY: CNN's Rosa Flores is live near the border in Eagle Pass, Texas. Rosa, what more are you learning about the lawsuit and what comes next here?

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the plaintiffs in this case are two non-profit organizations and the county of El Paso. And what they claim is that this law is unconstitutional, that it oversteps federal authorities and also federal protections like asylum. And the county of El Paso says that it's going to cost them millions upon millions of dollars. Now, for his part, Governor Greg Abbott maintains that the law is constitutional and that he's ready to take this legal fight all the way to the US Supreme Court.

[07:30:00]

But let me show you exactly why El Paso County, the localities, are so concerned about this. Take a look behind me. This is El Paso -- Eagle Pass, Texas.