Search Posts

Right, this is the kind of thing that you would see in China or Russia or Banana Republic. And I think American people see that, and that's why you see Trump's numbers growing up when you see these kinds of unfair things being carried out. And our founders built our system in such a way that the voters would have the final say.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-The 2024 election, turning into a free-for-all, maybe. Well, a dozen states could follow Colorado in kicking Donald Trump off their ballots, or at least trying to. And now Republicans are vowing to retaliate against Joe Biden. -We should all be encouraged by any action that makes it less likely that he will return to the president. -It's just a question of law. It's like if a 14-year-old tried to run for president, would that person be kept off of the ballot because the Constitution says you have to be 35 years old to run for president? -What's the limiting principle for that? Why could we just say that Biden can't be on the ballot because he led in 8 million illegals into the country and violated the Constitution, which he has? -Maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas. -California now looking to copy Colorado's ballot ban, and that's the lieutenant governor who's trying to run for governor next year, so that's very political. And despite serious legal questions, the Golden State's lieutenant governor, she said she's exploring all options. Listen to her here. -We are in uncharted territory in our country, and the decision out of Colorado is a very significant fact. When the Supreme Court of Colorado determines in an examination of the facts that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore is disqualified from being on the ballot, certainly here in California, we have to look at that information and make the same determination here. -So all these developments putting pressure on the Supreme Court to intervene to allow Americans to vote for Donald Trump, legal experts argue it should be an easy case. -The core problem here is the denial of due process. It was a five-day hearing. There was no jury. It was before the judge. They were not able to subpoena witnesses and compel the attendance of witnesses. The process here was a procedural Frankenstein. And what Colorado did was wrong. It was wrong legally, but it was wrong in terms of our values. -Colorado tried to sort of take this state-level proceeding that's not really made for this type of insurrection determination and force a square peg into a round hole, and I think that violates Donald Trump's due process rights. -But some in the liberal media seem to be arguing that Trump doesn't even deserve a fair shake. -So many of these people are serving jail time and Donald Trump's not, for one simple reason, because unlike Donald Trump, they are not rich and powerful. So, please, spare me the anti-democratic lectures. -All right, Judge, I think people would be anxious and eager to hear from you and your thoughts on all of this. -Well, first of all, let me say I'm glad to be back at the table. It's a terrible house to be saying that. -I'm glad you're back, Amanda. -It's a pleasure to see you all. First of all, the 14th Amendment was never intended to be used the way the court in Colorado used it. First of all, the whole idea of an insurrection and the idea that's encompassed in Section 3 of Article 14 is that they would keep a Confederate off the ticket for president post-Civil War. That's number one. Number two, the question as to whether or not what happened on January 6th is an insurrection is still an open issue. The question is, did anybody go in with guns? Was there a plan to actually take over the government to seize control? And then the other thing is, whether Subdivision 3 applies to a president, it's not clear in the 14th Amendment. It talks about judicial officers of any state. It doesn't speak specifically about the president and insurrection. So, right on the face of the 14th Amendment, they lose. But let's talk about who made this decision. Just as judges on the Supreme Court in Colorado, from Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, UVA, and Penn. All those elite schools that are very anti-Trump to begin with. So then you say to yourself, well, now look at the results. A lieutenant governor in California is looking to follow Governor Newsom. This woman is so smart, she thinks the president, according to the Constitution, has to be 40. I mean, it's 35, number one. But number two, she said it creates a precedent. She doesn't understand the legal system. Colorado doesn't create a precedent for California. Higher courts declare precedents for lower courts. And finally, this is all about disqualifying a political foe. There is absolutely no basis for it. And I wanna know, what are the Democrats so afraid of? What are you so afraid of? You've tried criminal cases, civil cases. You've impeached them. Now you wanna throw 'em off the ballot. What next? Why are you so desperate to take this issue away from the American people? - And Greg, the media and the left seem to be conditioning the environment for any decision that comes from the Supreme Court to be political if it doesn't go the way that they want. - Exactly, I mean, it is so obvious why this has happened. The Dems are freaking out about the poll numbers. And rather than play fair, they're gonna take the player out. This is the equivalent of like drugging the opposing star player before the big game. You know, this is why they're doing the insurrection hoax. They Hitler hoax. The media's all in and it's hysterical. They've totally overplayed this. And the Dems are in a bind. They've normalized Hitler. I mean, everybody's a Nazi. You know, meanwhile, they made sure that young people in our education system aren't really sure what Hitler is anymore because they've been calling everybody Hitler. They use Hitler the way surfers use the phrase awesome. You know, that's so Hitler, man. Wow, Hitler's speech today. That's a Hitler jacket, dude. Why are they doing this? Here's why. Imagine if the election were a blind taste test. You got two products and you list the accomplishments on both sides, side by side. The policies, what was done. Well, one would taste like pure non-pulp orange juice and the other one would be horse piss. Trump is the orange juice, Biden's the horse piss in that blind taste test. 'Cause if you focus on what matters, everyone would favor Trump. So you have to label that brand as something bad. Hitler, right? And so people against their own needs and core concerns would end up voting for the horse pee pee. When you say someone is Hitler and the followers are Nazis, I said it before, you're telling people it would be immoral and even evil not to do everything possible to stop him. If you have a chance to kill Hitler before he enacted the Holocaust, who wouldn't do that? So that's why they're pushing these hoaxes in order to demonize it. So you can't, you can't support him. You would be just as bad. This is why millions of people didn't trust the election process of 2020. Because one side, you know, they use the government, the media and the tech basically to exploit every single avenue, illegal or not, lie, cheat, spy in order to get their way. They're doing it now, but now it's on meth. Colorado has really lit a match and the Supreme Court, I hope acts quickly because if all these other states are gonna try this, they need direction from the highest court to say yay or nay. - Well, I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow and usually I say something controversial before vacation. - Okay. - So I'm gonna pass. - Okay. (laughing) I'll give you a pass. - I'm kidding. We're gonna, so do you know who else got knocked off the ballot? Lincoln. The Southern Confederates knocked him off 10 state ballots. Another glaring similarity between Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump. Excuse me? Also-- (laughing) Also-- - My colonizer. (laughing) - Donald Trump was acquitted in the Senate of insurrection and he was never charged criminally with insurrection. And the Democrats are always saying how it's vote suppression when they have to wait in line for an hour to vote for their candidate. Well, what if you never get to vote for your candidate? That is crazy. They are talking about stealing our votes and they're happy about that. Now, I don't know if you read Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal. - I did, I did read that. - Did you read Karl Rove? - Yes, I did. - Okay. - I did. - He makes the point that there were 51 former Confederate soldiers and legit Confederates that ended up becoming federal officials. The Confederacy's former vice president became a federal official. One of the chief secessionists became an interior secretary and a Supreme Court justice. - You don't say. - Well, I don't. Karl said it. (laughing) And he mentions the fact that after the Civil War, the Republican Congress passed this great amnesty package where it kind of provided for a little bit more of reconciliation to allow some of these people to be brought back into the Union. So if there is more of a spirit of reconciliation and national unity after the Civil War than there is today in 2023, that is bananas. - We do hear a lot from people on both sides of the aisle that there's a concern about the crisis of confidence in our institutions. And this seems to actually, again, throw a match on a problem that the court, hopefully, that the Supreme Court can push forward. But if the Supreme Court rules and says this is ridiculous and it's not 9-0, do you think it will just turn into another political food fight? - I think we'll certainly analyze the makeup of the votes for pushing this back. I think, well, I said yesterday, I thought it'd be overruled. What I think will likely happen, and by the way, John F. Kennedy talked about that same guy and his profiles and courage, but he wrote about the fellow that Karl talked about. - Wrote? - And profiles and courage. So a couple things, our nation is not perfect. We strive every day to make it more perfect. And I believe that the engine that allows, the most important part of that engine that allows us to do that is the fact we're built on a rule of law. And the rule of law allows for steadiness, allows for fairness, allows for accountability and predictability. In this instance here, Democrats may be upset with me for saying this, but the record that they looked at in Colorado, it appears as I read the thing, they looked at the political hearing that took place in the January 6th hearing and viewed that as a tribunal and looked at those facts when the subject of that matter, the target of that matter, Mr. Trump, didn't have a chance for cross-examination. There were not witnesses that he was able to put forward. So there are a bunch of questions that the judge knows this better than anybody. I think that they're likely the court because they don't wanna deal with all the questions around, is he an officer? There's just so many, there's so many difficult questions. And Bill Barr said it best when he said it's just basically the denial of due process. So I think these questions will, to Dana's point, I think they're just gonna push it back to that court and say, look, answer all of these questions, allow witnesses to come before, because Barr said it best, you can't have a few days of a hearing, not allow someone who's gonna be disallowed to be on a ballot, to be elected to office, to be decided by, and I hear everybody says, I hope there's, the reason I hope there's a 9-0 vote, and Judge, you were making a point about some of the law schools, is that I think Americans need to see that judges are impartial agents of adjudicating the law. And when the law is clear, and I think in this case here, there's just not enough of a record here for this to be decided like it's been decided. And I was frustrated hearing the California Attorney General, I don't think you just look at another state because you like their politics or like the politics of the decision and say that we have to look at it. Well, you look at the law, and if the law allows you to do this, then you have to look at it whether you agree with it or not to determine whether or not your own laws are consistent with that. But I'm hopeful that the court will look at this quickly, and that we can find ourselves not talking about this like we have been.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.