39 posts from Wednesday, December 20, 2023

-I'm also going to indemnify all police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States for being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong action on crime. These are people. They want to destroy them because they want to put criminals away. They're forced to do nothing. They cannot do anything when they want to. They do want to. They're the greatest people. The police -- and I just met a lot of them in the back -- backstage. They're all, like, incredible people. But, you know, they're under threat of losing their pension, their house, and their family, and losing everything. If you touch these people -- I mean, you let -- what's going on where the people are going into these stores and robbing them, and even the clerks -- they fire clerks if they try and stop them. I mean, if I had a clerk that was willing to stop them, I would say, "You are the greatest. You love our country, our company, our store." And they fire them. It's, like, crazy. There's something going on. Our brains are being fried. There's something going on. But our police know everything, and they can solve these crime problems very quickly, but they're not allowed to do it. And they don't want to lose their families. They don't want to lose their house and their pension. We're not going to let that happen anymore. So what I'm going to do is give indemnifications to any police officer that gets in trouble for pursuing a criminal because that's what we have to do.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, this Court just handed partisans on both sides the ultimate tool to try to shortcut elections. And it's very, very dangerous. I mean, this country is a powder keg, and this Court is just throwing matches at it. And I think that it's a real mistake. But I think that they're wrong on the law. You know, January 6th was many things, most of it not good. In my view, it was not an insurrection. It was a riot. It doesn't mean that the people responsible for that day shouldn't be held accountable. But to call this an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification would create a slippery slope for every state in the union. This is a time when we actually need democracy. We need to allow the voters to vote. We need to hear their decision. And the Court here just said, you're not going to get that. In Colorado, we're not going to let you vote for Donald Trump. And you know, you could dislike Trump. You could believe he's responsible for January 6th. But this isn't the way to do it. I mean, it is, you know, for people that say they're trying to protect democracy, this is hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I've seen in my lifetime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-Donald Trump has just been kicked off the ballot in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection against the United States on January 6th, and under the 14th Amendment, he's constitutionally prohibited from holding office. Therefore, Donald Trump's name will not appear on the ballot of the Republican primary in Colorado and therefore not appear on the ballot in the general election in Colorado. That is, unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case. Donald Trump will be appealing the ruling, and the Supreme Court has until January 4th to announce if it will take it. We expect the Supreme Court to hear it before this Colorado thing sets a precedent and affects Trump's ballot access in other states. Colorado lawsuit was filed by a Soros-funded outlet decided by an all Democrat-appointed Supreme Court and the Democrat Colorado Secretary of State within a split second was celebrating on MSNBC. -Look, I believe he incited the insurrection. There were big questions around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the Colorado Supreme Court has weighed in in a very loud way. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has to apply to the presidency because, if not, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. -The Trump campaign responded to the lawsuit just now, saying, "Democrat party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November. 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." Remember, Biden won Colorado by nearly 14 points. This was never about Colorado's ballot access. This was about having a targeted lawsuit aimed at setting a precedent to knock Trump off dozens of state ballots and disqualify him by any means necessary from the presidency, therefore denying the people their right to vote. Charlie Hurt joins me now. So, we expect the Supreme Court to take the case and what do you think is going to happen, Charlie? -I think, without a doubt, they have no choice but to take up this case because -- and I think you're exactly right about this -- they're trying to set a precedent. This will open the floodgates. You'll have left-wing lunatic states all around the country trying to do the exact same thing, and you're exactly right there. This has very little to do with ballot access in the general election. It has to do with barring Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination. I thought his statement was really interesting where he said Democrat leaders have lost faith in Joe Biden. That's true, but Democrat leaders have also lost faith in democracy, and that's what we're seeing in Colorado today. The Democrats in Colorado are so afraid of allowing American voters to vote and pick the next president. They are willing to do extrajudicial things, complete highway robbery here, in order to thwart the people's choice from being on the ballot. To them, preserving democracy requires destroying democracy, and that's who we're dealing with. These people are unhinged. They're lunatics, and they're very dangerous. -Yeah, I mean, it's more than voter suppression. It's more than voter intimidation. It's the elimination of the voter. You can't vote for the guy you want to. It's as simple as that, and it's because the court ruled, in their opinion, he's an insurrectionist. He's not been charged with insurrection. He's not been convicted of insurrection. It's just their opinion that that's what happened. -Yeah, and that's such an important point. We hear the word "insurrection" thrown around all over the place. Everybody wants to sort of hide behind that, but literally Jack Smith, who would charge Donald Trump with absolutely everything, including jaywalking, if he could get away with it, didn't even charge Donald Trump or most of the rioters on January 6th with insurrection. And by the way, another thing that I think is kind of an interesting point here is that Donald Trump faced the trial that a president faces in the United States Senate over the January 6th riots. He was charged with impeachable offenses, and he was found not guilty there. And that's obviously not the same as a court of law, but that is a very significant factor in determining whether or not this guy committed insurrection or whatever. But the other thing I think is also interesting is that these people are -- they are so determined to thwart democracy and to prevent people from voting for who they want to vote for that, to them, January 6th, that was the Civil War to them. There is no difference between that and a four-year horrifying, the deadliest war in our history. To them, it's the same thing. If it meets their political objective, they don't care. -Do you have faith in the Roberts Court? Remember, last time, they didn't even take his appeal on the 2000 election. They just didn't even take it. -Yeah, I actually do, because I think that this court, if I were to define the Roberts Court, it is that they want -- they don't want courts determining everything. They believe -- and if you look back at the Obamacare ruling, what was the court's ruling? The ruling was, "Congress, you built this monster. You deal with it." And they kicked it back to Congress. And there's a lot of criticism about that decision. And I agree with that criticism, but the main thrust of it is that they don't want the courts running the country. They want legislatures to run the country. And we saw that with the Dobbs decision as well. And I think that if that's your mindset here, then you have to look at this crazy lunatic court in Colorado and say, "We're not gonna let these people deny Americans the right to vote for who they want to vote for in the next election." -Charlie, it would be nice if we could just have an election where no one interfered -- not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the FBI, not the CIA, not some wacko judge in Colorado. Just let the people vote like we've always done, and it shakes out how it shakes out. Is that too much to ask? -Yeah, that would actually be really nice if we didn't -- if we'd have an election where the CIA and the FBI doesn't take Kremlin talking points and run with them to rig our election. I would love that. -Yeah, just a nice, normal, clean election. -Let the children fall where they may. -Right. Thanks, Charlie.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

The people, Democrats in Colorado are so afraid of allowing American voters to vote and pick the next president, they are willing to do extrajudicial things, complete highway robbery here, in order to thwart the people's choice from being on the ballot. To them, preserving democracy requires destroying democracy. And that's who we're dealing with. These people are unhinged, they're lunatics, and they're very dangerous. Yeah, I mean, it's more than voter suppression. It's more than voter intimidation. It's the elimination of the voter. You can't vote for the guy you want to. It's as simple as that. And it's because the court ruled in their opinion, he's an insurrectionist. He's not been charged with insurrection. He's not been convicted of insurrection. It's just their opinion that that's what happened.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Yeah, this is election rigging, Kayleigh. It was a narrow four to three decision. It will almost certainly, in my judgment, be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment, as you point out, don't apply to the facts here. It was intended to prevent Confederates who literally took up arms against the government during the Civil War from holding office. So you fast forward now 150 years, roughly. And Donald Trump is not even accused of insurrection under the federal statute. And if evidence supported that, surely Jack Smith, the special counsel, would have charged him with it. So to remove Trump from the ballot for an offense that he hasn't even been tried or convicted of, what is that? Well, that's violating his right to due process, which just happens to be guaranteed by the very amendment, the 14th, and elsewhere in the Constitution. But, you know, there's another factor here, Kayleigh. You know, this is a lawyer under past Supreme Court rulings. The language used in the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the office of president or anybody running for it. Colorado officials here have, I think, brazenly manipulated the clause for purely political reasons. Another example of election interference by Trump opponents. This is an effort, make no mistake, to deprive American voters of their right to make the decision as to who should be president. It is anti-democratic. It's the equivalent of rigging the ballot box, and it will surely be seen that way only in flaming voters and I think boosting support for the former president.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

this concept of lawfare, meaning using the judicial system to stop the people from getting what they want and what they support. This is, is it not playing out tonight? 100 percent, Laura. I mean, this is, as Jonathan Turley just said, really breaking democracy to save democracy according to the left. They don't want the voters to decide this. I think there's obviously this this deep fear of Donald Trump potentially winning the White House back and what he would do when he's back in office in regards to breaking apart the administrative state and the status quo.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

institution and turn into a piece of silly putty for political ends. That is classic judicial activism, is it not? It is, yes, Laura. And it is good to have the mask ripped off. You can see the fangs here, folks. These people, they don't care a bit about democracy or your right to vote for who you think is the best president. This is a raw act of judicial power by four unelected judges in the state of Colorado. It's on the question of federal law, thank goodness, so they don't have the final word on questions of federal law. That goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I am confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse this, because it is a lawless ruling. And politically, it may wind up benefiting Trump. Who knows? But it is not good for our country at all, Laura. now. And I hope the voters of Colorado.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I'm Laura Ingram. This is the Ingram angle on a breaking news night. Tonight, America is seeing the ultimate in election interference as four unelected state judges, all appointed by Democrat governors, have ruled that Donald Trump must be kept off next year's presidential ballot.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.