58 posts from Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Not one single person has been charged with insurrection. Not one single person has been convicted with insurrection. Not one, in every single court of our land, no one's been charged and convicted with insurrection, yet Democrats and dishonest people in the media every single day accuse President Trump of waging an insurrection. And accuse many of us of waging an insurrection and you're doing nothing but lying and selling the lies of the Democrats all for campaigns and elections. Shame on every single person that has done that. Shame on you. You need to tell the truth. You have the freedom of press, one of the greatest rights in this entire world. And anyone that puts the word insurrectionists calls President Trump an insurrectionist and calls any of us an insurrectionist is a liar and you do not deserve the power that you possess. Shame on you. Shame on you. Let me give you guys a little history lesson, okay? When President Trump was inaugurated, Antifa and leftist rioters nearly burned down Washington DC. Did you call it an insurrection? No. BLM raised millions of dollars on the Act Blue Democrat fundraising website and then proceeded to cost $2 billion in damages across American cities and communities all in 2020, every day. Not one day for three hours, every damn day. Did you call it an insurrection? They attacked police officers, federal courthouses, tore down statues, burned 93 police vehicles. Did you in the media call it an insurrection? No, you did not. You called it mostly peaceful and you lied to the American people and the American people don't trust you anymore because of that. And then the American people who pay for elections with their tax dollars actually own the elections and have the right, the right to care about their elections, election integrity and the results of their elections when they came to Washington and protested, all of you called it an insurrection. And then when Joe Biden was inaugurated and this entire Capitol complex was surrounded with 30,000 National Guard troops, none of you stood there and called that an insurrection. Oh no, you all stayed silent. And while Matthew Graves, the US Attorney at the Department of Justice is arresting people every single day, throwing them in jail, held them for 22 hours in solitary confinement, unconvicted, all of you stay silent. No one attacks them for that. Apparently you think it's deserved. Shame on you. And I want you to know the American people are paying attention. They're not stupid just because you tell them in your articles and in your headlines and on your networks that Trump is an insurrectionist or any of us are insurrectionists. No, as a matter of fact, you're hurting your own careers and you're hurting your industry for lying to them. So I would like to thank you, Matt, very much. And I would like to thank Elise Stefanik for introducing this resolution and I cannot believe we even have to do this because Democrats and liars in the media accuse President Trump of being an insurrectionist when in fact he is not. He said, go in peace, go in peace. God bless President Trump. God bless him for saying we should care about our elections. And I want you to know because of that, Americans do care about our elections and we have every single right to care. Thank you very much. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

People have pled guilty, you know, right right right after I was elected. I went to what they call a g7 meeting all the NATO leaders I was in. It was in the south of England and I sat down and I said, America's back and meet Iran from Germany. I mean, from France looked at me and said. Said, you know. What? Why? How long you back for? And I looked at him and the and the chancellor of Germany said. What would you say? Mr President? If you picked up the paper tomorrow in London times and the London Times said 1000 people break through the House of Commons, break down the doors, two bobbies are killed in order to stop the election of the prime minister. What would you say? I never thought about it from that perspective. What would we say? that happened in other democracies around the world.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

saying that the American people should have the right to choose the next president of the United States, not judges in Colorado. Here with reaction, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. You know, professor, I look at section three, the 14th amendment. By the way, the president, uh, is not even mentioned in the statutory language, but put that aside for a minute. But the whole allegation that Trump engaged in insurrection, correct me, professor, if I'm wrong, um, did Donald Trump ever get charged with insurrection? Has he been convicted of insurrection or is this just a word that the January six committee put on in their predetermined outcome hearing that they had? Well, I'm not even that much that he's been charged by the secretary of state of Maine with insurrection and by individual judges and a court in, in Colorado, there's been no conviction or charge. Smith could have easily persuaded a grand jury to indict him for insurrection and rebellion or any of the other provisions of the 14th amendment. The problem is article five of the 14th amendment says that Congress has the power to define what insurrection means, what rebellion means, what the procedures are plainly the framers of the 14th amendment who were Lincolnian kind of very, very, uh, in favor of reconstruction would never have allowed the states of Mississippi or Virginia to decide who's going to be the on the ballot for president of the United States. This was intended to be congressional action. Congress took no action to implement the 14th amendment. It's not self enforcing. And I believe the Supreme court will rule, I hope nine to nothing, uh, that this, uh, 14th amendment argument is just made up at a full cloth. Look, what we're involved in is a game of beat the clock. Remember that we will kids beat the clock. Everybody's trying to get down and dirty convictions against Trump or rulings against Trump before the election to influence the election. And if they come to higher courts, they will almost certainly be reversed. Well, we'll see, uh, there's a lot of issues out there. Greg, let's get your take on it and you know, there's got to be due process as part of this. If you, you at least would have to be charged convicted, I would think before you can say with any certainty, guilty of insurrection. That's right. The 14th amendment does not disqualify Donald Trump because section three doesn't cover candidates for president. That office is deliberately omitted, specifying instead senators, representatives and electors only. In fact, if you look at the earlier versions of the amendment, it proposed the president, but then later dropped it, excluding the president because the authors were concerned about Confederate leaders being elected to Congress, not the presidency or over the professor's right. Section three is not self executing. It's dependent on congressional action, just read section five. And finally, you know, I doubt the Supreme court will even address the issue of insurrection except to note that Trump is not, as you point out, been charged or convicted of that offense. Partisan officials cannot simply declare him guilty of insurrection without due process. That violates the 14th amendment. So this is political gamesmanship. The Supreme court will see it for what it is. And I think it will be unanimous. Let me ask you both about the immunity decision real quick. About 20 seconds each. I thought there were better arguments on the issue of presidential immunity than the one that was given about the Navy seal and ordering, you know, a hit on a political opponent, professor. sides argued too broadly, the Trump side argued for all total and complete immunity and the other side for virtually no immunity. If the Supreme court takes this case, it will split the difference and it will rule that some actions done by the president within the scope of his authority to be broadly defined are covered by immunity and others like ordering that deals to it. Is that what the argue quickly, Greg, I think there were better arguments available. Clearly they'll bring that to the Supreme court. It's true. And the DC court opinion is deeply flawed, claiming that Trump has become citizen Trump. So he has no immunity. That misunderstands the argument at issue are his actions as president, not later as private citizen. And a president needs immunity because otherwise every president, you know, will be making a decision through the prism of, oh, if I do this, uh, what's going to happen after I leave the White House? All right. Thank you both. When we come back, it'll be lawyers who were making the decisions, not presidents.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

case, the three panel court wrote in its opinion that quote, "We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power. The recognition and implementation of election results, nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. So ruled the court and so they opined." Trump in a previous filing had made the argument that as president, he is immune from criminal prosecution. In fact, his argument is sound, it is consistent with the Constitution. And that's important, perhaps more important than the appellate court understands. Trump specifically argued that prosecuting a former president is in violation of Justice Department policy. How? Well, the DOJ has a long-standing policy against prosecuting current presidents. Trump also argued that because he was acquitted during the Senate's January 6th impeachment of him, he cannot be then criminally charged for the same actions as that would constitute double jeopardy. Trump's attorney John Sauer made the case during oral arguments that under such a standard George W. Bush and Barack Obama would be prosecuted after leaving office, or at least could be. "To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's box from which this nation may never recover. Could George W. Bush be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly giving false information to Congress to induce the nation to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses? Could President Obama be potentially charged with murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens located abroad?" Both salient questions, and both, well, not rhetorical in point of fact, although they seem such. Nonetheless, the court ruled unanimously against President Trump and that argument today. It was also, as you noted from the excerpt I read, completely absurd how exactly did President Trump violate the rights of individual citizens to vote. In fact, we would argue his decision to and desire to investigate the election did the exact opposite. President Trump was trying to ensure that every legal vote counted in 2020. So what does today's ruling mean? First it means that for now, the criminal trial against President Trump for his actions on January 6th can proceed. That case had been indefinitely delayed by a lower court until the appellate court could issue a ruling on Trump's immunity. We don't know when that trial would begin or if it will be underway ahead of the election or if indeed it does move to trial. But this decision is of course not final. At least yet. The question of Trump's immunity does not end here. President Trump will appeal this court's decision and a Supreme Court denial of that appeal would make the DC court corruption all the more evident. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is known for considering the political implications of the court's implications of the court's decisions. So it's no guarantee that the Supreme Court would even hear Trump's appeal, not a guarantee. That in and itself would be a gross dereliction of duty by the high court. If that were to happen, the case returns to the district court with Obama appointed Judge Tonya Chutkin overseeing the case, ever so impartially. We can't say what will happen with this case, only time will tell. But we do know this. What we are seeing unfold is the very end.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.