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, killed 11 people as they were praying in pittsburgh in 2017. paramount global has indicated that they are suspending their support on that platform. this antisubmittic comments have raised nearly 400%. oliver, you have been covering elon musk and his coverage of twitter for a long time. does this feel different to you? >> this feels a lot different. it seems like there's an exodus if you will from this extreme rhetoric from elon musk endorsing this antisubmittic conspiracy theory. you are also seeing the separate report that came out this week in from watchdog mead yearts where it says dizzy fully apple were seeing their ads against neothnazi ads. so this confluence of events have really created an environment where advertisers don't want to touch this place with a ten foot pole. they want out. you are seeing on a friday night all these advertisers come out big brands that they really need saying they have enough, they're getting their advertisements off x. >> our friend posted a list of infamous antisemites, this isn't the first time we have seen elon musk post things like that, sam reply phi, because of who he is? >> i'm not sure he has gotten away with it to be honest. he has posted some of the most conspiratorial deranged theories on x and advertisers have been silent for a long time. earlier this year he was attacking george surros a man of jewish, surros hates humanity and that was condemented by the anti, for just pointing out that hate speech has risen on the platform since he took over. a finding that a lot of other groups have also come to the same conclusion as well. i'm not sure why advertisers have taken that long, finally elon musk took the mask off and i think it's untenable for this relationship. >> he seemed to respond to it a bit tonight about all of this saying that he's suspending anyone from x as it's now called that advocates the genocide of any group of. that is not addressing the post that he said that you speak the truth. basically, you know, poker gasoline as we're already seeing a rise in antisemitism in the u.s. >> it's just gross. and you know experts have warned of course that this -- these antisubmittic rise have learned to growth, you have elon musk, the richest man in the world, endorsing this. not only has he endorsed this, he has allowed bigots back on the platform that suspended and banned these theories, the platform is now drenched in a lot of hate speech and you are seeing elon musk as well promote this hate speech often the lat form. it is a terrible environment it is obviously very dangerous and the post he's posting tonight really don't account for it at all. i mean it's just simply not enough. >> no responsibility. >> no. >> oliver darcy thank you very much. also tonight we are on the ground in israel where families of hostages that are kidnapped by hamas are marching from tel aviv to jerusalem, as they demand that the israeli government do more to get their system members home. i'm going to talk about hohoww ththose negotitiations statand t after thisis. >> as israel is preparing to potentially expand its military operation to southern gaza there is a growing concern tonight among the civilians if where if anywhere is safe. there are some 900 u.s. citizens legal residents and their families who are currently in gaza. we know that 750 or so have escaped through rafah crossing into egypt. that includes these, zacharaia is with us with me. i'm so glad you and your family are safe and you are visiting me today. all of a sudden you're trapped in the middle of a war. can you just describe what you saw? >> i see stuff i never seen my life. i see bomb, i see people die.. i see building down. i see everything is bad. that's what i see. and when i was home, i have home back home, and they ask us to move to different place. and i move to the different place. and still isis not safe. as was next to my -- somebody else when i go. my wife's cousin, brother, this was big noise and bomb next to us. and they scare us, scare the kids. i do not believe how strong was the noise. >> i mean -- >> and now i was connect with my embassy in jerusalem and they take all my information and they told me we'll call you back. i don't know what's happened. they never call me back. and i try ocall my son here, yakia, and he call and find out to call rashido, anybody to help us to get out. and rashido worked for us. >> congresswoman rashida talad, yes. >> no food no water no nothing. i was buy water from the store and i go buy water, no more water no more food. >> how did you eventually get out? >> taliba contact with -- with -- with the congress, they call me from washington, d.c. they call me, you have to go to the border, and i go like five time. i spend all they ever say was the border closed. she work she add my name in the list. >> i know you still have family in gaza, two of your children, seven of your grandchildren tonight. have you able to -- have you heard from them? >> that's why i'm gobbing talk now about my kids my daughter kids and my son kids. the officer i try to call him, like ten time the answer, one time, like i say what's happening? they trying every time for me, take us take us please take us. and i say i will have to do my best and i try to find somebody to help me now because it's not safe. it is no food no water. and i cry every day for my kids and i need my kids to please here very soon. >> i can't even imagine the pain that you must feel over that and the helplessness to a degree. and zachariah, i'm so sorry for what you've been there through for what you and your family have been through. >> thank you. >> we'll stay in touch with you as you are still trying to get your family your kids out of gaza tonight. >> no problem, you're welcome. thank you. >> his family in gaza also the hostages as their families deeply worried about them tonight. we'll get an update from an israeleli officialal right aftfr thisis. >> tonight cnn is told negotiations are still ongoing to tree the hostages still held by hamas. one demand hamas has made is for israel to stop flying those surveillance drones. among the hostages is emily hand, today a new billboard went up in times square. emily's 9th birthday and her 41st as a hostage. former israeli intor danny denone. thank you for being here. emily's father and others are still worried about their loved ones tonight. what is the biggest sticking point in the negotiations now? >> we are dealing with a very cynical organization being led by a psychopath, he doesn't care about the kids the children in gas or the children he's keeping from the hostages. the people of israel are watching very carefully. the families are marching to jerusalem. they will arrive jerusalem tomorrow. every time we think we have some kind of agreement, we are we bring back the children and the noughts and today we hear that the hamas is not willing to bring back the entire families. i give you an example. two twin sisters, three-year-old emma and uri, we cannot bring one of them behind and bring one of the sisters back to israel. so those kind of issues are being raised all the time. and you know, it's very important but at the same time, we cannot accept the fact that he wants to play with our emotions. >> so you're saying that hamas wants to split up some of the families not next give israel the back the list that it gives to hamas. the other thing we're told that hamas wants is for israel not to fly those drones over gaza if there's a pause. is i.t. something israel is considering stopping? >> i won't go to specifics but we are willing to do a lot to bring back the kidnapped hospital tanls. hostages. 40 days in prison -- >> are you willing to do that? >> we are negotiating a lot of things we're not happy with. i can't give you details of what we agree or don't agree but we are willing to pay a heavy price including releasing prisoners in israel who committed all the crimes against israelis but every time we have seen it is like a break through they come up with new demands. >> israel is willing to release some of those prisoners being held, hamas prisoners, allowing limited fuel deliveries into the gaza strip, we've seen the first two go in. israel do you have any expectation that it will be reversed or do you think that will stay in place? >> well, there is still debate about it. we feel that we give all day long and we don't receive anything in return and we hear a lot about the humanitarian crisis in gaza but we don't hear anything about the humanitarian crisis in israel. mainly regarding the families of those that are being held in gaza today. so that government decided, the government decided to allow fuel to go in and we know that it will not go to hospitals. we know that hamas whatever is coming into gaza they are taking it so it's a challenge because they will slew the fuel to refuel the rockets that are sent into israel, they will use it for ventilation of the where they are hiding so it is a debate. i don't think it would be a reverse but i think we should expect to receive something. even a red cross visit to the hostages or videos, proof of life. we haven't got anything. >> is that something you believe the prime minister should have -- the fuel has already gone in at least part of it, it's supposed to be dam deliveries. should he have got be that in return before they send the fuel in before, you say that argument? >> there should be no free lunch for those terrorists. those countries that are pushing us including the allies in u.s. and europe we should say yes wee are willing to do it but we have to get something in return so i would expect them to negotiators to apply more pressure on hamas and not to apply live pressure only on israel. >> ambassador one central issue is what we have seen what the world has seen from israel as far as allegations what it has made about the al shifa hospital. there was a massive 3d briefing that the idf has said, so far they have shown one tunnel entrance that is about 100 meters from or 30 meters or so from the hospital. is israel going to release evidence to back up its claims that there is this sprawling command center underneath the al shifa hospital? >> well first kaitlan i beg to differ with you. we proved that el shifa is not a hospital, it is a military base. i don't know if you have seen panels that you need as a hospital or in the cabinets you have an ak 47 or in the you find gren easdz, i can tell you more than that, that we have evidence brought into the al shina hospital not to receive medical treatment. it is hazardous of hamas that's why we are trying to stop us from conducting the investigation and the more we look into it we find more evidence -- >> is where are those hostages? so far all we've learned is the idf ahas found the body ofs of two hostages since they went into the complex. where are the other hostages? >> i would assume they are transferred to the other location. because we took the time we spoke to the hospital before we came in we asked them what they need. they knew that we were coming in and that allowed them to transfer the hostages and unfortunately to kill, we see every day horrible videos that hamas is releasing where you see people have better than killed by the end of hamas who were held in the area of al shifa hospital. >> ambassador thank you for staying up for us. appreciate your time. >> thank you very much, kaitlan. >> we'll be back in just a moment.