Truth Details

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. This is 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 let 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 says 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 1 simple reason.
Because unlike Donald Trump,
they are not rich
and powerful.
So please,
spare me the anti-democratic
lectures.
Alright 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 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 1. Number 2,
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.
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 1. But number 2, 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 want to 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 want to throw them 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 drugging the opposing star player before the big game.
This is why they're doing the insurrection hoax, the 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.
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 2 products and you list the accomplishments on both sides, side by side. The policies, what was done.
Well, 1 would taste like pure
non-pulp orange juice and the other 1 would be horse piss.
Trump is the orange juice and Biden's the horse piss in that blind taste test. Because 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 PP
When you say someone is Hitler and the followers are Nazis I said it before you're telling people it would be a moral 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 1 side,
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 yeah or nay.
Well, I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow and usually I say something controversial before vacation, OK, so many past.
I'll give you a pass. I'm kidding we're going to
so 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.
Also.
My colonizer.
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. Yes I did. Okay.
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.
1 of the chief secessionists
became an interior secretary and a Supreme Court justice.
You don't say.
Well, I don't. Carl said it.
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.
Harold, 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 The 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 the votes for
pushing this back I think what will 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 in his Profiles and Courage book. He wrote about the fellow that Carl talked about. Wrote?
In 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 that 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 things, they looked at the political
hearing that took place in the January 6 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, and the judge knows this better than anybody. I think that they're likely, the court, Because they don't want to deal with all the questions around, is he an officer?
There are just
so many difficult questions. And Bill Barr said it best, and he said it's just basically a denial
of due process. So I think these questions will, to Dana's point, I think they're just going to 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 A90 vote, 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 I was frustrated hearing the California turnager 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 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 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.