Search Posts

All right, joining me now, Saul Weisenberg, former deputy independent counsel and Fox News contributor, alongside Mike Davis, Article 3 project president, Saul. I was going back to that 2016 piece in the Washington Post about getting the electors to not represent the popular vote. I had forgotten about that piece completely until today. And I'm reading this and I'm thinking, huh, that sounds like kind of a little bit of a radical theory in some circles, certainly. But nobody was thinking that would be part of a criminal conspiracy if anyone even thought to implement it. That was interesting. Oh, yeah, it's it's it's completely hypocritical. Of course, they would say that President Trump went further on January 6th. But there's no question that it's hypocritical. And this is more more of the same. Can you think of anything more anti-democratic than the idea that some state functionary, some state secretary of state can declare on his or her own? Well, I think Donald Trump has engaged in insurrection or rebellion under the as understood in the 14th Amendment without any kind of a trial, without any kind of process, without any kind of definition. It's just ludicrous. And to Saul's point, Mike, some states are already considering this 14th Amendment theory that we all talked about for the first time. I think last week, the week before, here's the Michigan secretary of state. Watch this. I'm going to follow the law. What the law says is what is going to dictate how I and I hope all of my colleagues proceed in this moment, in particular around thorny issues like this one. I'm going to be talking with Al Schmidt in Pennsylvania, with Cisco Aguilar in Nevada, with Brad Raffensperger. Mike, I hope they all immediately reject this, what seems to me completely unconstitutional nonsense. Well, it is unconstitutional. There is an article out by Stanford Law Professor Michael McDonald, a former federal judge who makes it very clear he's not a Trump supporter by any means, but he makes it very clear that this is a bogus legal theory by the Democrats. In order to disqualify under the 14th Amendment, you have to follow a federal statute on insurrection and rebellion. A criminal statute get a criminal conviction with a judge and a jury, and it has to stand up on appeal before you can even consider this. There is no evidence whatsoever of insurrection. Democrats looked for several years with the January 6th Commission, and they found zero evidence because it doesn't exist. Yeah, so, Sol, he wasn't charged with an insurrection account of insurrection. The wide-ranging RICO conspiracy in Fulton County, insurrection, as much as they like to talk about it, there was no sense of an intent to violently overthrow the government. This whole theory rests on, I think, a fallacious understanding of even what the basic facts are in this case. Well, here's the problem with the theory. If we were starting from scratch, it's not like there's a complete lack of support historically for this conception of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The problem is, in 1869, there was an opinion by Chief Justice Salmon Chase of the Supreme Court. He wasn't sitting as a Supreme Court justice, he was sitting as a circuit judge, but he made a ruling that's been considered definitive for about 150 years, and what he said was, this is not self-executing, this Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, that there has to be congressional enforcement. And as Mike pointed out, Congress has passed a statute that tracks the exact words of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it makes it a crime to engage in insurrection or rebellion against the government, or to incite it, or to give aid and comfort to its enemies, and the punishment, in addition to the criminal fine, is that you cannot ever hold office again, so it's been done. Again, the idea that you would have some state official, a partisan, partisanly elected state official disqualify Trump without any kind of due process at all, I think is not going to fly. And listen, I think one of them's going to do it, and when they do, I think it'll move up rapidly through the courts, I certainly hope it does, and I think it'll be rejected by the Supremes. Yeah, I mean, you could see, right? This is gaining momentum, and we pegged it when Ludwig and Larry Tribe came out. We knew that this was going to be a boulder going down the hill, but Trump's lawyers were in court today on the January 6th case. Judge Amy Chutkin said, "I understand Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, as is every defendant. Let's not overlook the fact that Mr. Trump has considerable resources that every defendant does not usually have." And this was, I guess, regarding the timing of the case, which we're going to get into later on. But Mike, do you detect, just from that comment from the judge, I mean, that seems to speak to some anti-Trump bias right there. This Obama judge is a left-wing radical. She's been the harshest. She's a left-wing radical. She's been the harshest sentencer of January 6th defendants while she excuses the BLM protesters. There's no chance that President Trump is going to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C. with Judge Tonya Chutkin, Jack Smith, and this 95% Trump-deranged jury pool. Well, Saul, do you think it's possible to get a fair jury outcome for Donald Trump in D.C. and with a D.C. jury? I think it's virtually impossible if there was ever a case that called for a change of bend. You forget about the judge. Just because of the jury panel in D.C., I think that would happen. Unfortunately, the law is very bad on this. There's the Supreme Court opinion, the skilling opinion, which we think of as important because of honest services. Part of the ruling was that they didn't have to move the Enron trial out of Houston, so it's going to be very tough to do that. Yeah, I don't think they're going to win on that one. Saul and Mike, as always, thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.