Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Will Michelle Obama Replace Biden? plus Part 2: Predicting Supreme Court Opinion on Colorado Trump Case

Transcript

Will Michelle Obama Replace Biden? plus Part 2: Predicting Supreme Court Opinion on Colorado Trump Case · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Welcome.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson. With you, Senator,
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: we said we were going to do a two part
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: series on this Colorado case that is going to the
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court and get into some more of the history
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: of it. This will be part two. But a prediction
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: that you made on this show seems to be much
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: closer to becoming a reality than anyone imagine. As the
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: former First Lady Michelle Obama said in a recent interview
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: that her fears about the twenty twenty four presidential election
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: keep her up at night, saying she's terrified and she
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: believes we need a real leader. It sounded to me
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: like she's saying, I might want to be the president
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: of the United States of America. You predicted this, sir.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: Let's just take a little shock moment of victory lap.
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: At the same time, Well, look, it is certainly not
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: a victory lap because it's horrifying for the country. But
• 0:56
  Speaker 3: I will say months ago, we did an entire podcast
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: laying out that I thought the odds were rising dramatically
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: that the Democrat Party would pull the ripcord on Joe Biden,
• 1:10
  Speaker 3: parachute him out, abandon him, and replace him with Michelle Obama.
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: And my reasoning. Let's revisit the reasoning because because it's
• 1:19
  Speaker 3: you know, sometimes when I say this people they're like, Okay,
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: this seems ludicrous. Here's my reasoning. Number one, I think
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: if Joe Biden had dropped out two months ago, I
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: think you'd see a ton of Democrats jumping in the field.
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: I think the top four in the field would be
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, Pete Boudhaje Edge, Elizabeth Warren, and Gavin Newsom.
• 1:39
  Speaker 3: There'd be others, but those would be the top four
• 1:42
  Speaker 3: in that field. I am convinced in an open primary
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: in the Democrat Party, the winner would be Elizabeth Warren.
• 1:50
  Speaker 3: And the reason I'm convinced that, I think she is
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: the ID of the Democrat Party. They are radical socialists,
• 1:56
  Speaker 3: they're angry. Remember look in twenty twenty she ran and
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: Bernie sam they both split the whack job leftist part
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: of the party, and Bernie almost won. With Bernie out
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: of the field, I think Elizabeth Warren wins that open primary.
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: But at this point we're sitting here in January, it's
• 2:13
  Speaker 3: too late for Joe Biden not to run, so he's
• 2:15
  Speaker 3: going to run, he's on the ballot. That means the
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: only opportunity for the Democrats to pull Biden is at
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: their convention this summer. Now, if they do that, they
• 2:25
  Speaker 3: have a problem. If they pull Biden, the next person
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: in line is Kamala Harris. Now there are a bunch
• 2:31
  Speaker 3: of people saying, oh, they're going to replace Kamala with
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: Gavin Newsom. I think the chances of that happening are
• 2:37
  Speaker 3: zero points zero zero percent.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Why.
• 2:40
  Speaker 3: I think the Democrat Party is structurally incapable of replacing
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: an African American woman with a white guy, like I
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: think their party would implode and spontaneously combust in flames.
• 2:56
  Speaker 3: They cannot do that, And so they've got a problem
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: because if you're a Democrat and you want the Democrats
• 3:02
  Speaker 3: to win, most Democrats that break into double digits in
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: the IQ say Kamala is a really bad candidate, Like, wow,
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: we don't want Kamala to be the candidate.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: But and remind, remind people she was one of the
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: first people to drop out and when she ran for
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: president because she didn't connect with anyone.
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, she got she couldn't figure out who she was.
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: Is she a liberal? Is she a moderate? What like
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: she was all over the place. Her approval ratings are
• 3:32
  Speaker 3: worse than Joe Biden's, which is hard because his approval
• 3:35
  Speaker 3: ratings are terrible. And look, I'm going to try to
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: frame this politely. I think it is a reasonable prediction
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: that Kamala will not be winning any Nobel Prizes in
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: the future.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: I think that's a good way of putting it.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: And I think the Democratic Party knows that that's the
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: reason why they're trying to figure out. Okay, if it
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: isn't Joe Biden, who do we get and how do
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: we all Floadamala? Well, then you'd have to pick a woman,
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: and who better than Michelle is not just.
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: A woman, an African American woman, And so from the
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: Democrat Party's perspective, that really is a set of one.
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: They couldn't push her aside for, you know, for a
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: house member, for a low like you can't push the
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: sitting Vice president aside for someone further down the political
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: pecking order. So there is literally one person on planet
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: Earth who the Democrat Party could tolerate pushing Kamala aside for,
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: and that is Michelle Obama. And Michelle Obama is a
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: first for or first lady. She sort of stands on
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: a different footing. And so we did a podcast several
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: months ago that got a ton of attention and people
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: noticed where I said, I think the chances of risen
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: dramatically of Michelle Obama. Now, at the time, my assessment
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: was that it was about thirty five percent that Michelle
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: Obama would be the nominee. Now that's I still don't
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: think didn't think it was more likely than not. But
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: going from zero to thirty five percent, that ain't nothing. Now,
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: in just a second, we're going to play for you
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: this interview Michelle did. I think this interview is incredibly
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: revealing and it's caused me to change the percentage that
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: I put as to the likelihood of Michelle being the nominee.
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: But before I tell you how it changed, let's listen
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: to what she said on this podcast interview.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: What is the thing that keeps you up at night?
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: Now?
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Well, what is your biggest fear? Now after having overcome
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: so many It.
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: Has less to do with me personally and more to
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: do with the world that we're in.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: There's such a thing as knowing too much.
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: And when you've been married to the president of the
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: United States, who knows everything about everything in the world.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Sometimes you just want to do you know too much? Right,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: it's I don't know.
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: I don't want to know what was in that folder
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: that you just got that made you quiet, you know,
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: I don't want to know why the security just pulled
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: you over. I mean, it could be any range of
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: things that comes across the desk of the leader of
• 6:03
  Speaker 4: the free world. Right, So I know a lot about
• 6:06
  Speaker 4: what's going on, and what keeps me up are the
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: things that I know. The war in the region in
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: too many regions, What is AI going to do for us?
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: The environment? You know, are we moving at all fast enough?
• 6:22
  Speaker 4: What are we doing about education? Are people going to vote?
• 6:26
  Speaker 4: And why aren't people voting? Are we too stuck to
• 6:29
  Speaker 4: our phones? I mean, those are the things that keep
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: me up because you don't have control over them, and
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: you wonder where are people at? Where are we in
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: this you know, where are our hearts? What's going to
• 6:42
  Speaker 4: happen in this next election? I am terrified about what
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: could possibly happen because our leaders matter, who we select,
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: who speaks for us, who holds that bullied pulpit. It
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: affects us in ways that sometimes I think people take
• 6:58
  Speaker 4: for granted, you know the fact that people think that government,
• 7:02
  Speaker 4: you know, does it really even do anything? And I'm like,
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: oh my god, does government do everything for us? And
• 7:10
  Speaker 4: we cannot take this democracy for granted? And sometimes I
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: worry that we do. Those are the things that keep
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: me up, Senator.
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: Those comments, they were not off the cuff. It was
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: obvious she wanted to cover that, she wanted to get
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: it out there. It was well thought out, well said,
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: and that's the reason why when I heard I go,
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: oh my gosh, she's literally floating herself.
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: Well, I think two things really stand out for those comments.
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: Number One, the biggest argument that is given against why
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: Michelle would be the nominee, as people say she doesn't
• 7:43
  Speaker 3: want it. She hasn't run before, she doesn't have the
• 7:46
  Speaker 3: fire in the belly. She has a great life. She
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: has a life of a movie star at a celebrity.
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: She has a life of George Clooney or Oprah or
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: Bruce Springsteen. She hangs out Martha's vine. She's got a
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: couple hundred million dollars, she flies on private jets. She
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: doesn't want to be president. And what is really striking
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: there is where she's like the thing that keeps me
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: up at night is who's going to be the next
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: leader of the free world? And she says, you know,
• 8:15
  Speaker 3: what does government do? She goes, oh, my god, government
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: does everything in our lives. Now, that's a pretty powerful
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: refutation of the point that she doesn't care if it's
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: keeping her up at night, and she thinks government does
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: everything in the question of who's going to be the
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: leader of the free world, it is what is filling
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: her mind. Okay, that's significant. And then the second thing
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: she says, where she's talking about being first lady, and
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: she says, I know a lot, and she basically is
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: like pitching her qualifications, like everything she knows because she
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: was married to Barack Obama when he was president and
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: still is today. That that that that she like knows
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: everything the president needs to know. And you're right, it
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: does feel a little bit like a pitch. Hey guys,
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: I'm here, I'm ready, I can step in, and I'm
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: willing to do it. And so I would change, as
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: I said, my assessment a couple of months ago was
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: the odds of Michelle being the nominee were thirty five percent.
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: Based on this interview, I would change those odds from
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: thirty five percent to forty five percent. I still think
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: it is slightly more likely than not that Biden remains
• 9:26
  Speaker 3: the nominee, but I think it's fifty five to forty five.
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: I think it is almost a coin flip. And candidly,
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: I had been hoping the thing that might save America
• 9:38
  Speaker 3: is that Michelle would be selfish enough to say, I
• 9:41
  Speaker 3: don't want the nomination, even if you hand it to me,
• 9:44
  Speaker 3: even if it's a coronation, even if I don't have
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: to run for two years, even if I'm just like
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: invited into the Oval office with the blow of a trumpet,
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: I don't want it because I like my life. Like
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: I would really like Michelle to say that, because I
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: think if she's the Democrat nominee, it is incredibly dangerous.
• 10:03
  Speaker 3: She is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous nominee because the first
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: Lady has a patina of teflon. She's not perceived as
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: overly partisan, she's not perceived as combative. Now I think
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: she's incredibly partisan. I think she's more partisan than baraque
• 10:22
  Speaker 3: is and was as president. But look, if you look
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: at the polling numbers, Michelle Obama is the most popular
• 10:30
  Speaker 3: woman on the face of the planet. And that's just
• 10:32
  Speaker 3: objectively true. And a first lady is protected by that,
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: particularly a first lady that had eight years of the
• 10:40
  Speaker 3: media and Hollywood just singing her praises. And so I
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: listened to that interview and frankly, it scares the heck
• 10:48
  Speaker 3: out of me.
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: Well, let me ask you one other question and just
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: remind people how this scenario could become reality if they
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: maybe missed that episode where we talked about this. If
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: Democrats wanted to allow Joe Biden, the place to do
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: it would be at the convention, and explain how this
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: could go down very quickly where Michelle Obama hypothetically could
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: then have a campaign that would basically be two months
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: in some days, that's it, because she wouldn't have to
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: run a real campaign. You could also argue that there's
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: a very good chance she then wouldn't even have to
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: debate if Donald Trump is the nominee, for example, because
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: it's a two month plus campaign.
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: Well, and look, that's one of the things people say
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: in response to this is they say, look, we don't
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: think Michelle wants it because she didn't run in twenty sixteen,
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: she didn't run in twenty twenty. If she wanted to run,
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: they say she's not Hillary Clinton. She didn't dive in
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: immediately and want to be the candidate on the ballot.
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: That's what Hillary did after Bill was president. Is Hillary
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: is like me, me, me, and Michelle did not do that.
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: I think it's a very different decision for Michelle a
• 11:54
  Speaker 3: year plus ago to ask do I jump in? Do
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: I spend two years running? Look, run for president is
• 12:01
  Speaker 3: brutally hard. I know this from first ten knowledge. I
• 12:04
  Speaker 3: loved every minute of it. But it ain't easy. It's
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: all consuming. And Michelle knows that. I mean she knows
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: that uniquely, and that she was side by side Barack
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: Obama worked his butt off running for president. He was
• 12:16
  Speaker 3: a phenom of the modern age. And so she made
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: the decision in sixteen and in twenty and in twenty three,
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: preparing for the twenty four election not to jump in.
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: It's a very different cost benefit analysis to say, do
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: you come in in the summertime in the convention? Are
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: you handed the nomination without having to debate a single
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: primary opponent, without having the campaign, without having to fight,
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: and do you have a three month campaign where the
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: media will be singing hosannas that Saint Michelle has come
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: to save us. That's a very different cost benefit analysis.
• 12:58
  Speaker 3: And I got to say, the number of people on
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: planet Earth who, if you were offered jump in for
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: three months and you can become president, who would say no,
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: is really small. There may be some, but man, I
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: know for a fact, if I told you right now, hey,
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: jump in the summer, you can be president November or
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: elected president November and start in January, you'd be a yes.
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: I'd certainly be a yes. And it's a much wider
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: set than the people who are psychotic enough to actually
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: run for president.
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and what an easy road. I mean, it would
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: just not it's a coronation. It's not an election. It's
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: a coronation. But I got to say, if I were
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: David Axelrod, if I were a Democrat strategist, I would
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: be all in on this.
• 13:42
  Speaker 3: I'd be like, this is how we keep our radical
• 13:46
  Speaker 3: left wing agenda going. Joe Biden has so many faults.
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: And by the way, Axelrod has floated trial balloons the media.
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: Who is the left wing of the Democrat Party. They
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: keep floating trial balloons of gosh, Biden's a really crappy
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: can like, let's sing his praises, let's say thank you
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: for coming in for four years, but let's put them
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: on an ice float and push them out into the Arctic.
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: All right, real quick, let's talk about your finances. It's
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty four and a lot of us are trying
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: to get our finances in order. There are some great
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: news for homeowners. Interest rates have dropped and are now
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: in the fives, a lot lower than what they were
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: last year. If you've been buried in high interest credit
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: card debt, now's the time to break free. American Financing
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: can help you access the cash in your home to
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: pay off your high interest debt. Last year, their salary
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of eight
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: hundred and fifty four dollars a month. That's like giving
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: yourself a ten thousand dollar raise. What a way to
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: start the new year off. And if you start today,
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: you may be able to delay two mortgage payments. Call
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: American Financing Today eight and eight six.
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: Forty nine. That's eight and eight six seven five forty nine.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Americanfinancing dot net MLS eighteen twenty three thirty four MLS
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: Consumer Access dot org APR for rates in the five
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: start at six point four zero. For well qualified borrowers,
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: call eight and eight six seven, five forty nine for
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: details about credit costs and terms. I want to get
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: also back to this bigger issue a part two of
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: this conversation that we started, and if you missed it
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: in our last show, you got to go back and
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: listen to part one. And this has been a dive
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: into this case from Colorado that's going to the Supreme
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: Court and what is going to happen there. And you
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: wanted to break down the history as well behind the
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: premise of this whole argument, uh, with insurrection et cetera,
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: and the president not being convicted of that.
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: Uh.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: And I want to pick it up there because this
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: is going to be something that moves and it's going
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: to have a major impact on the future of this
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: country as well.
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: Well. That's right, And I want to encourage listeners. If
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: you didn't listen to Monday's podcast, you ought to go
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: back and listen to it because in that podcast, I
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: break down what I believe the Supreme Court is going
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: to do in the Colorado appeal, the decision about whether
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: Donald Trump can be on the presidential ballot, and I
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: explain why I believe the Supreme Court is going to
• 16:28
  Speaker 3: reverse Colorado, and I think there's a very real chance.
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: I think it is more likely than not that the
• 16:33
  Speaker 3: decision from the Supreme Court is unanimous. And I go
• 16:36
  Speaker 3: through each of the arguments that Trump is making and
• 16:39
  Speaker 3: I give my assessment of him. Some of the arguments
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: are stronger than other arguments, and I lay out the
• 16:44
  Speaker 3: theory that I think is going to command a unanimous
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court decision, And it's the sort of thing I
• 16:50
  Speaker 3: have to admit, Ben, you and I have done a
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: lot of podcasts. Monday's podcast is one of my favorites
• 16:56
  Speaker 3: that we've ever done because the content in it, I
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: believe you can't get anywhere else, Like there's literally no
• 17:05
  Speaker 3: other source, there's no other podcast, there's no other news
• 17:07
  Speaker 3: broadcast that there's no other source that has that content.
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: And it's one of the reasons I love doing this
• 17:14
  Speaker 3: podcast because we walk through issues at a level of
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: detail and substance that it just doesn't exist elsewhere.
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, it was one of my favorite shows
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: as well, and it's amazing how many people actually responded
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: going I can't wait for part two, because you clearly
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: weren't done explaining how this is going to work through
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court.
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: Let's pick it up there.
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: Okay, So the Supreme Court has addressed what the Fourteenth
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: Amendment in section three means, and it's addressed it a
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: couple of times. First of all, it addressed it concerning
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: Jefferson Davis. Now, Jefferson Davis was the head of the
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: Confederacy and what happened after the Civil Wars. The United
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: States indicted Jefferson Davis in Virginia for treason, and Jefferson
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: Davis argued in response that the Fourteenth Amendment Section three
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: imposed a penalty that barred a treason prosecution. Davis argued
• 18:11
  Speaker 3: that that section three was an exclusive criminal punishment, and
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: he said that applying it to him would violate double jeopardy.
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: And he argued, as part of that also that section
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: three was self enforcing. We talked about this in the
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: last podcast. Self enforcing means a provision of the Constitution
• 18:31
  Speaker 3: that doesn't need additional legislation to give it effect, but
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: rather has legal effect on its own. And in response,
• 18:39
  Speaker 3: the United States argued Section three was not a punishment,
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: or that if it was, that exclusion from future office
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: was not the exclusive punishment. And in response to that,
• 18:57
  Speaker 3: whether Section three the Davis the Jefferson Davis treason prosecution
• 19:05
  Speaker 3: was never fully resolved. And what happened was there was
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: a district judge named John Underwood who disagreed with the
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Chase, and the
• 19:18
  Speaker 3: issue was then certified for appeal to the U. S.
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court. But then President Andrew Johnson gave Jefferson Davis
• 19:26
  Speaker 3: a pardon, and once he was pardoned, it rendered the
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: case moot because you didn't have to adjudicate whether he
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: could be tried for treason because he'd been pardoned, So
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: he couldn't be tried for treason once he was pardoned.
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: And so that was one issue where there was a dispute.
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: But secondly, the very same judges gave a different reading
• 19:45
  Speaker 3: over Section three dealing with black defendants in Virginia. So
• 19:51
  Speaker 3: you had number one, Jefferson Davis, the head of the Confederacy.
• 19:54
  Speaker 3: They had one determination. And then there were some black
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: criminal defendants who were sentenced, tried, and sentenced by state
• 20:02
  Speaker 3: judges and there was a challenge to those convictions arguing
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: that those state judges could not serve in office because
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: they had been in the Confederacy, and they were contrary
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: to the ban on people who'd taken an oath of
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: office to support the Constitution then engaging in an insurrection.
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: And what happened was that Virginia appealed. So the district
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: judge granted a writ of habeas corpus, which is, in
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: other words, it ordered that black defendants be released from
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: criminal imprisonment. And Virginia appealed that, and it went to
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: Chief Justice Salomon Chase in his capacity as circuit judge.
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: And so in nineteen sixty nine, the Chief Justice reversed
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: the decision of Judge Underwood in a decision that is
• 20:58
  Speaker 3: known as Griffin's case. Griffin's case is significant because it
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: is it is the most meaningful Supreme Court adjudication of
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: what the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three means. Now it's a
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: lone justice, it's not the full court, but it still
• 21:17
  Speaker 3: has presidential effect. Now, what did the Chief Justice say? Well,
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: on the merits of the Section three case. The Chief
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: Justice began with first principles, and this is a quote
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: from his opinion. What was the intention of the people
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: of the United States? In adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, what
• 21:34
  Speaker 3: is the true scope of the purpose of the prohibition
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: to hold office contained in the third section, And before
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: answering those questions, Chief Justice Chase said that quote a
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: construction which must necessarily occasion great public and private mischief
• 21:51
  Speaker 3: must never be preferred to a construction which will occasion neither,
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: and neither in so great a degree, unless the terms
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: of the instrument absolutely require such preference. And he went
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: on to say the practical aspects of Section three. The
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: Chief Justice said, the text preferred reading quote best harmonizes
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: the amendment with the general terms and spirit of the
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: Act Amendment. The principle forbids a construction of the Amendment
• 22:26
  Speaker 3: not clearly required by its terms, which will bring into
• 22:29
  Speaker 3: conflict or discord with other provisions of the Constitution. And
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: after that, Chase wrote, quote those provisions of the Constitution
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person life, liberty,
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: or property without due process of law, or to pass
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: inconsistent with their spirit and the general purpose. With a
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: provision Section three which at once, without trial deprives a
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: whole class of persons of offices held by them. And
• 23:07
  Speaker 3: as a result, the Chief Justice offered a solution to
• 23:11
  Speaker 3: what he said were the practical and legal difficulties with
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: giving Section three a literal interpretation. He said Section three
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: was not self executing, and he said it could not
• 23:23
  Speaker 3: be self executing, and he said that Congress did not
• 23:27
  Speaker 3: implement Section three in Virginia until February eighteen sixty nine,
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: when a joint resolution ordered the military commanders to remove
• 23:34
  Speaker 3: ineligible officers who had not received amnesty from Congress. And
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: so the habeas petition granted by the District judge Judge
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: Underwood predated the joint resolution, which meant the grants were
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: erroneous because the trial judges were not ineligible. What that
• 23:51
  Speaker 3: means that there's a lot of legal jargon there. So
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: if you're not a lawyer constitutional.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: Scholarship, I was only going to laugh and say, oh, okay,
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: put that in layman terms, so I understand it, and
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: everyone else listening because I'm even confused on it and
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: paying close attention.
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: Look, and this is nineteenth century, and so nineteenth century
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: judges spoke in some jargons, So I'd read you the language,
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: but I get it's not easy to understand. It's not
• 24:16
  Speaker 3: easy to understand for modern day lawyers, much less for
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: non lawyers. But what he is saying is that the
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: prohibition on Confederate officers serving in office is not self executing.
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: It doesn't go into effect on its own, but it
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: needs rather an act of Congress to give it force.
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: And understand what was happening here. These were state district
• 24:40
  Speaker 3: judges who had presided over criminal trials, so they were just,
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: you know, a judge that you had criminal defendants who
• 24:46
  Speaker 3: had committed crimes. And the argument of the criminal defense
• 24:49
  Speaker 3: lawyers were was, Hey, these judges had previously taken an
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: oath to defend the Constitution and then they supported the Confederacy,
• 24:59
  Speaker 3: so they're they are for they're ineligible to serve as
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: state judges under Fourteenth Amendment, Section three. And therefore my
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: criminal conviction is not valid because the judge that presided
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: over it doesn't have the authority to serve in it.
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: And what Chief Justice Chase concluded was, No, that's not
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: true because Congress did not legislate to give that effect. Now,
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: do I think this determination is binding and conclusive on
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: the court.
• 25:30
  Speaker 4: No.
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: And the way it works a decision by an individual justice.
• 25:34
  Speaker 3: So the way it worked, Supreme Court justices used to
• 25:39
  Speaker 3: do what was called ride circuit, and so the justice's
• 25:43
  Speaker 3: riding circuit, and it was literally riding circuit meant in
• 25:46
  Speaker 3: many cases getting on a horse and riding around the circuit.
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: Each justice had a different judicial circus circuit that they
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: were the appellate judge for, and they would hear appeals
• 25:58
  Speaker 3: as individual judges. In some way, it sort of functioned
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: like they were the Court of Appeals. And look, this
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: is relatively early in our country's history, so you didn't
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: have the full court of appeals system we have now.
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: A decision by an individual justice riding circuit does not
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: have the presidential force of a US Supreme Court decision
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: joined by a majority of the court. That is binding
• 26:22
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court president and an individual circuit justice is not.
• 26:26
  Speaker 3: But the decision of a circuit justice is considered persuasive.
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: It's not binding, but it has real force. And in
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: this case, it's the Chief Justice of the United States
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: opining on what the Fourteenth Amendment meant. And so I
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: think in the Supreme Court argument that will happen on
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: February eighth, you will see a lot of argument about
• 26:47
  Speaker 3: Griffin's case. The DOJ will argue that there's a lot
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: of modern day scholarly criticism that they don't like Chief
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: Justice chases reasoning in Griffin's case. But this is going
• 26:59
  Speaker 3: to be a major topic of discussion in the oral argument.
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: When you look at which side has the strongest argument
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: and compare it to the weakest. Who walks in with
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: the biggest advantage with these Supreme Court justices as it
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: sits now.
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: So, and this is something I explained in the last podcast. Look,
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: I try to think. Let me tell you how I
• 27:20
  Speaker 3: approached arguments. I really enjoyed being a Supreme Court litigator.
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: It was an incredible joy. And the way I.
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: Appros by the way I got to ask you this
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: question now because everybody listening is gonna want me to
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: ask it, and I'm gonna ask it. Yeah, people hear
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: the name Ted Cruz and they know that obviously you
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: ran for president twenty sixteen, that you love being a
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: United States senator. But every time I go around, and
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: it happens multiple times a month, you're like, man, I
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: wish Ted Cruz was on the Supreme Court.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: Why isn't he on the Supreme Court.
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: It should he have been on the Supreme Court because
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: you're so good at it and you love it. So
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: can you dive into that for just a moment, because
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: everybody asked me that question and I always laugh and
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: I'm like, well, there's some backstories there, but why isn't
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court?
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah? Look, it is a very flattering. It is a
• 28:06
  Speaker 3: very kind thing to say. And as you know, as
• 28:08
  Speaker 3: I travel around, people say to me with some regularity,
• 28:12
  Speaker 3: you should be a Supreme Court justice. And look my
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: response when someone says that, I just say thank you,
• 28:15
  Speaker 3: because that's Look, that is an incredibly gratifying thing to say.
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: The short answer is I do not want to be
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: on the Supreme Court. I and when Donald Trump was president,
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: that opportunity was very real. So for all three of
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: the vacancies that occurred under Trump, Trump had very serious
• 28:38
  Speaker 3: conversations with me about them. The most serious concerned the
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: initial vacancy, which was Justice Scalia's seat that was vacant
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: and was ultimately replaced by Justice Corsic. And right after
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: the presidential election in twenty sixteen, in November, I flew
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: up the next week to New York I went to
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: Trump Tower. I spent four and a half hours with
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: with President Elector and with his senior team, and he
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: spent an enormous amount of time really leaning in and
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: frankly trying to convince me that the Supreme Court was
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: a great option. Now, I don't want to overstate it.
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: He didn't offer me the position, but it was not
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: subtle what he was saying and what his team was saying.
• 29:18
  Speaker 3: They were all like, what the hell's wrong with you?
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: Why don't you want to go to the Supreme Court.
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: Here's the answer. I think the court matters exquisitely. I've
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: spent other than my time in the Senate, I've spent
• 29:31
  Speaker 3: almost my entire adult life litigating in front of the
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: US Supreme Court. I think it is an incredibly important
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: institution for the rule of law, for our constitutional liberties,
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: for our freedoms in America. A principled federal judge stays
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: out of politics and stays out of policy fights. And
• 29:52
  Speaker 3: if I were a federal judge, that's what I would do.
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: I would stay out of those fights. The simple answer, Ben,
• 29:59
  Speaker 3: I don't want to stay on are those fights. I
• 30:01
  Speaker 3: think policy fights in political fights matter intensely and frankly, listen.
• 30:07
  Speaker 3: I think there are a lot of people who are
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: wonderful human beings who want to be tremendous judges or justices,
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: and I would like to be involved in nominating or
• 30:16
  Speaker 3: confirming scores of wonderful constitutionalists to the federal bench. I
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: don't want me to be one of them, because if
• 30:24
  Speaker 3: you want to fight in the political arena, the right
• 30:27
  Speaker 3: place to do so is in the elected positions and government.
• 30:32
  Speaker 3: So I'm in the United States Senate. I think of
• 30:34
  Speaker 3: the Senate as the Roman colisseum. And to be honest, look,
• 30:40
  Speaker 3: I how many people do you know in the Senate
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: that are actually standing up and fighting this fight every day.
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: It's a small number. I'm not going to give you
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: a number, but it's not huge that are effectively going
• 30:53
  Speaker 3: to battle day in and day out, defending the Constitution,
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: the Bill of Rights, defending conservative principles, defending our value.
• 31:00
  Speaker 3: And I jump out of bed every day eager to
• 31:03
  Speaker 3: do that fight. And so when Trump talked to me
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: very seriously about the Supreme Court, I told him flat out, no,
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: I don't want it. I wouldn't accept it. I am
• 31:12
  Speaker 3: not interested in being on the Court. I care profoundly
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: about who's on the court.
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: But it amy one other question I want to ask
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: you about this case moving forward. You predicted that this
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: is going to be probably a very stern Supreme Court
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: on this issue with Colorado. As your mind changed at
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: all since we did part one on that, I mean,
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: you're back in DC. You've seen, I guess more of
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: the press reaction, You've seen more of the reaction in Washington.
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: Do you still think that the Supreme Court is eager
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: to not only take this up, but also to say, hey,
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: you can't in America, In the United States of America
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: right now, we let the people decide. We don't let
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: people dictate who you can and can't vote for.
• 31:57
  Speaker 3: So let me say I wouldn't say eager is the
• 32:00
  Speaker 3: right adjective. They're not eager. The Court would love to
• 32:04
  Speaker 3: stay out of this. They don't want to be involved
• 32:06
  Speaker 3: in this presidential election. They want to stay out of it.
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: But once Colorado ruled that they were pulling Trump off
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: the ballot, the Court had to get in. And I
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: actually think every justice recognized, Okay, we've got a responsibility.
• 32:21
  Speaker 3: We can't duck this. We've got to resolve this because
• 32:25
  Speaker 3: this is the court exists to resolve the most important
• 32:29
  Speaker 3: legal issues in the country, particularly concerning the constitution, and
• 32:33
  Speaker 3: whether you will allow the voters to vote for a
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: candidate for president is right at the top of it.
• 32:41
  Speaker 3: Is difficult to imagine a more consequential constitutional issue than that,
• 32:46
  Speaker 3: and so I think every justice recognized, even though they
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: didn't want to be in this, they had a responsibility
• 32:52
  Speaker 3: and they really had no choice. Now, I also believe
• 32:55
  Speaker 3: the odds are overwhelming, close to one hundred percent the
• 33:00
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court. I just
• 33:04
  Speaker 3: I do not believe they are going to allow one
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: of the two major parties candidates for president to be
• 33:11
  Speaker 3: removed from the ballot and to tell the voters you
• 33:14
  Speaker 3: don't get to decide who the president is. That is
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: contrary to democracy. It is an assault on democracy. Ironically,
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: while Joe Biden is prancing around and proclaiming his defense
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: for democracy, he and the Democrats and the media are
• 33:33
  Speaker 3: trying to utterly frustrate democracy and stop the voters from
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: voting for their opponents. I think the Court is going
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: to easily reverse it, and I desperately hope. I got
• 33:45
  Speaker 3: to say, there are very few things I have hoped
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: for more passionately that I can recall than that. I
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: hope that this is unanimous. If it's six ' three,
• 33:55
  Speaker 3: If it's the Conservatives voting to reverse and the Liberals
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: voting to affirm, that is bad for the Supreme Court.
• 34:02
  Speaker 3: It is bad for the country. It is bad for
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: the rule of law. It will cement the perception that
• 34:09
  Speaker 3: the Court is a political body, and that is disastrous
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: for the Court. I am certain that there is no
• 34:17
  Speaker 3: human being on the planet that feels that urgency more
• 34:20
  Speaker 3: intensely than Chief Justice John Roberts. I know John Roberts
• 34:23
  Speaker 3: very very well. We've been friends for thirty years. He
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: cares exquisitely about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. And
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: so I think the Chief Justice is going to ben
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: over backwards to find any theory that would produce a
• 34:40
  Speaker 3: unanimous decision. There are lots of theories he could do.
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: The one I find most persuasive. If I had if
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: Trump had offered me the Scalia seat and I'd gotten
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: the nomination in the place of Gorsa to the Senate,
• 34:53
  Speaker 3: he confirmed me if I were a justice, the theory
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: that I would be inclined to agree with is what
• 35:01
  Speaker 3: I laid out on the last podcast, which is it
• 35:04
  Speaker 3: is absolutely true and I think correct that if an
• 35:11
  Speaker 3: individual engages in insurrection, they're not eligible to be elected
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: to federal office. I'm convinced of that. However, what is
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: not clear is how you determine whether someone quote engaged
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: in insurrection. As I described in the last podcast, the
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: Civil War was indisputably an insurrection. No one can dispute
• 35:35
  Speaker 3: that we had a four year war with six hundred
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: thousand dead Americans. Like it is why the Fourteenth Amendment,
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: Section three was passed. It was in response to the
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: Civil War. It is the embodiment of an insurrection. There
• 35:49
  Speaker 3: is a real and acute debate over whether what occurred
• 35:54
  Speaker 3: on January sixth, twenty twenty one constitute an insurrection. I
• 35:59
  Speaker 3: think the answer is easy. I think the answer is
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: hell no. I don't think it remotely reaches that level.
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: But there are those who disagree. I will acknowledge there's
• 36:06
  Speaker 3: disagreement with almost every damn Democrat and all of the media.
• 36:10
  Speaker 3: They say routine the insurrection, insurrection, and insurrection. However, the
• 36:15
  Speaker 3: constitutional question is, how do you determine that someone has
• 36:21
  Speaker 3: engaged in an insurrection in the Civil War. Since nobody
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: disputed the Civil War was an insurrection. The only question
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: did you engage in it? So if you put on
• 36:30
  Speaker 3: a Confederate uniform, if you had stars stars on your shoulder,
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: you were guilty. Like that, it was easy to determine
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: whether you fell into that disqualification.
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it was as simple as you could make it
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: at that point.
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there was no No one disputed the Civil War
• 36:47
  Speaker 3: was an insurrection. And I'm not aware of anyone that
• 36:51
  Speaker 3: disputed if someone was in fact a Confederate officer. I
• 36:53
  Speaker 3: don't know have anyone that said, no, no, I wasn't a
• 36:55
  Speaker 3: Confederate officer. Like the two pieces were admitted, and so
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: so there was no meaningful factual dispute here. There is
• 37:06
  Speaker 3: a reason that Jack Smith and every other prosecutor, that
• 37:10
  Speaker 3: left wing prosecutor that hates Donald Trump, that nobody has
• 37:13
  Speaker 3: charged Trump with the crime of insurrection because you couldn't
• 37:17
  Speaker 3: remotely prove that. The facts don't demonstrate it. And so
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: I think the theory of the Supreme Court will say,
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: and I predicted a sentence from Look when this comes down,
• 37:29
  Speaker 3: and I think it'll come down, it'll be argued February eighth.
• 37:31
  Speaker 3: I'm going to predict it comes down February nineteenth. I'm
• 37:36
  Speaker 3: just pulling a date out. It will be some time
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: between February eighth and March fourth. I'm pulling a date
• 37:40
  Speaker 3: out of the air, saying February nineteenth. When it comes down,
• 37:44
  Speaker 3: I'm predicting right now, there will be a sentence. We
• 37:48
  Speaker 3: express no opinion over whether the events of January sixth,
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: twenty twenty one constitute an insurrection or not. However, in
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: order for the fourteenth Amendment prohibition to apply, there needs
• 38:03
  Speaker 3: to be a conclusive determination that it was an insurrection.
• 38:08
  Speaker 3: And for those who urge Trump should be ineligible. For
• 38:13
  Speaker 3: the Biden Department of Justice, which has urged Trump should
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: be ineligible, they have a path to prove that case,
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: which is to charge him with insurrection and convict him
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: and obtain a final judgment that he's guilty of insurrection.
• 38:26
  Speaker 3: If they do so, he will be ineligible for office.
• 38:29
  Speaker 3: But they have not done so. And accordingly, this decision
• 38:34
  Speaker 3: should not be made by judges in Colorado or a
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: partisan unelected secretary of State in Maine, but rather, the
• 38:43
  Speaker 3: decision of the next president should be made by the
• 38:46
  Speaker 3: voters and the American people. I think that that's what
• 38:50
  Speaker 3: I would rule if I were a justice. That is
• 38:52
  Speaker 3: the sort of opinion I would write. And my hope
• 38:56
  Speaker 3: is I really hope the liberal justices are are not
• 39:01
  Speaker 3: infected by Trump derangement syndrome like so many Democrats are.
• 39:05
  Speaker 3: That they recognize the damage to the court if they
• 39:08
  Speaker 3: make this a partisan decision will be historic and irreparable.
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: So I pray they don't do that.
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: We're gonna be watching it all here, don't forget.
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: We do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and a week
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: recap on Saturdays. Hit that subscribe follow our auto download button. Also,
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: if you do this show and listen to it on Apple,
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: make sure you check your settings that you are following
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: the show, as a lot of that has changed recently,
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: so in the new year, make sure you check that
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: it is important that you do that. And the Senator
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: and I will see you back here in a couple
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: of days.