Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Center Ted Cruz, and it is
Speaker 2: the Week in Review.
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you.
Speaker 2: And these are the big stories that you may have
Speaker 2: missed that we talked about this past week. First up,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is going to hear a serious case
Speaker 2: that deals with Donald Trump Colorado and his name being
Speaker 2: taken off the ballot.
Speaker 1: They've decided to hear that.
Speaker 2: So what does it mean for all the other lawsuits
Speaker 2: in other states they're trying to take him off the ballot.
Speaker 2: The Senator was going to give you all of that information,
Speaker 2: especially about how the Supreme Court will work. That is
Speaker 2: something very important. Plus, we have gotten now word that
Speaker 2: there is real concerns inside the United States of America
Speaker 2: of a coordinated terrorist attack at the hands of hesblah.
Speaker 2: How would they get into this country? More than likely
Speaker 2: it would be across our open southern border. And we'll
Speaker 2: explain those details. And finally, when the Supreme Court, here's
Speaker 2: this case with Colorado and Donald Trump. Is there a
Speaker 2: chance that the Supreme Court will stand up for democracy
Speaker 2: and a unanimous decision. Senator Cruz gives you his prediction
Speaker 2: on exactly that it is that we can review and
Speaker 2: it starts right now. How long are they going to
Speaker 2: have to argue this? I mean when you talk about
Speaker 2: oral arguments, is it is it hours?
Speaker 1: Is it ninety minutes? What are we talking about?
Speaker 3: Normally an argument is an hour, So normally each side
Speaker 3: has thirty minutes. They can extend it. They might extend
Speaker 3: it in this instance. I don't know, but normally an
Speaker 3: argument is an hour. And the bulk of the argument,
Speaker 3: by the way, is questioning from the justices. So you
Speaker 3: get up and the justices are asking you questions, and
Speaker 3: that it's a back and forth.
Speaker 1: It's not a mind is an opening statement?
Speaker 3: There is? There didn't used to be.
Speaker 1: So the old way they.
Speaker 3: Did Supreme Court arguments was you would start off, you'd
Speaker 3: stand up and you'd say, mister Chief Justice, and may
Speaker 3: it please the court, And every argument begins with that,
Speaker 3: and you would sometimes get less than a sentence into
Speaker 3: your argument and a justice would jump in and pepper
Speaker 3: you with questions and what made it invigoratings? You'd have
Speaker 3: a question here, a question here, question here, and it
Speaker 3: was just non stop, and you had to be quick
Speaker 3: and fast and anticipate justices who disagreed with your position.
Speaker 3: They're trying to ask you questions to expose the weakness
Speaker 3: of your case, and you had to anticipate it. They
Speaker 3: have post COVID, they regimented it now, and I really
Speaker 3: don't like how they do it now. But they now
Speaker 3: have a period of questioning from each justice, and so
Speaker 3: it's a little it's not the wild face.
Speaker 2: It's almost like Congress, or you have five minutes, or
Speaker 2: you have three minutes, and then you go in this order.
Speaker 2: Whereas before it could be a conservative just as to
Speaker 2: your question, followed up by a liberal justice to your question,
Speaker 2: followed up by another justice asking your question.
Speaker 3: It was it was control chaos, It was yes, and and.
Speaker 3: But it is more regimented now. But I would say
Speaker 3: I would expect the Chief Justice questions to lay out
Speaker 3: in the questions what he think thinks is the best
Speaker 3: theory to bring the court together. All right, let me
Speaker 3: give the rest of Trump's arguments. Fourth argument he makes
Speaker 3: is that Trump did not participate in an insurrection because
Speaker 3: an insurrection, as understood at the time of passage of
Speaker 3: the fourteenth Amendment, means the taking up of arms and
Speaker 3: waging war upon the United States. Now, I think that's
Speaker 3: absolutely correct. I think it's ludicrous to say that Trump
Speaker 3: engaged in an insurrection based on the facts. I also
Speaker 3: do not believe the Supreme Court will conclude that because
Speaker 3: you can't get nine justices for that, and I think
Speaker 3: they will want unanimity, and so they'll say, look, my
Speaker 3: guess is we might get a concurrence from one of
Speaker 3: the more conservative justices saying this clearly was not an insurrection,
Speaker 3: but we might not. And by the way, look, I
Speaker 3: said that there's a sixty to seventy percent chance of
Speaker 3: it being unanimous. That means there's a forty to thirty
Speaker 3: to forty percent chance that the liberal justices just hate
Speaker 3: Trump so much they can't bring themselves to do it.
Speaker 1: And what would that decision look like.
Speaker 2: I mean, would it be one or two that say, hey,
Speaker 2: just for the principle and said, n I know, we're going
Speaker 2: to go seven to here, or even go six ' three.
Speaker 3: Look six ' three would be heartbreaking. It would do
Speaker 3: real day in this country to the Court and to
Speaker 3: the country if it just broke on partisan lines. If
Speaker 3: the three liberal justices dissented and the six more conservative
Speaker 3: justices were in the majority, I think that would be
Speaker 3: terrible for the Court. And I really hope it's not so.
Speaker 3: The fifth argument that Trump made is that the electors
Speaker 3: Clause requires states to appoint presidential electures quote, in such
Speaker 3: matter as the legislature thereof may direct. In other words,
Speaker 3: the courts can't intervene in that. The sixth argument is
Speaker 3: that Section three can not be used to deny a
Speaker 3: candidate access to the ballot. It can only be used
Speaker 3: instead to prevent someone from holding office. So all of
Speaker 3: those are arguments, as I said, and you know it's
Speaker 3: and it's horse by the way, the argument that I
Speaker 3: think will will fly is the argument that it was
Speaker 3: not adequately determined that Trump had participated in insurrection, not
Speaker 3: that there wasn't an insurrection, but that the means of
Speaker 3: ascertaining that.
Speaker 2: While that goes back to Jack Smith and what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, he was never charged, much less convicted, and
Speaker 2: it didn't work its way through the court system. And
Speaker 2: so if you believe that Donald Trump in fact was
Speaker 2: a part of an insurrection, then charge him with it,
Speaker 2: get him convicted of it, then you have that different
Speaker 2: argument goes back to what you were saying at the
Speaker 2: very beginning.
Speaker 3: Yes, and I will say, look, one of the questions
Speaker 3: that will be front and center litigated is whether Section
Speaker 3: three is self executing. Self executing means a provision of
Speaker 3: the Constitution that has force of law, that doesn't need
Speaker 3: Congress to pass legislation to enforce it, and that will
Speaker 3: be actively disputed. And in the Colorado Supreme Court, one
Speaker 3: of the justices, Justice Carlo Samour, dissented on this point.
Speaker 3: And what he said is that the majority opinion of
Speaker 3: Colorado stripped President Trump of due process of the due
Speaker 3: process of law, and he says Section three didn't specify
Speaker 3: the procedures that have to be followed to be determined
Speaker 3: whether someone is engaged insurrection all the Democrats is absurd.
Speaker 3: It's insurrection. It's insurrection, but that hasn't been determined as
Speaker 3: a legal matter, and so Justice Samour concluded the Section
Speaker 3: three is not self executing and requires legislation for enforcement.
Speaker 3: And he argued that the lower courts proceeding in Colorado
Speaker 3: lacked basic discovery, lacked the ability to subpoena documents, lacked
Speaker 3: the ability to compel witnesses, lacked any time frame to
Speaker 3: investigate or developed defenses, and lacked the opportunity for a
Speaker 3: fair trial. And he pointed out that in his view,
Speaker 3: section three cannot be self executing because it doesn't provide
Speaker 3: any procedural guides. For example, Section three the fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 3: is completely silent on whether a jury has to be
Speaker 3: impaneled or not. Can a judge decide it? Or does
Speaker 3: it have to be a jury your peer as well?
Speaker 3: Section three doesn't say it. What's the burden of proof?
Speaker 3: Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is clear and convincing evidence?
Speaker 3: Is it simply a preponderance of the evidence. Those are
Speaker 3: very different burdens of proof. Constitution is silence on that.
Speaker 3: What's the standard of review, what's the standard of discovery,
Speaker 3: what's the standard of evidence? Is it a civil determination
Speaker 3: or criminal determination? None of that is there. And so
Speaker 3: what he argues is that Congress could pass legislation to
Speaker 3: adjudicate that. I'm not entirely persuaded on that. What I
Speaker 3: would say is Congress has passed legislation when it's set
Speaker 3: up a criminal statute for insurrection, that there is a
Speaker 3: mechanism and it is a criminal trial.
Speaker 2: And charge him and charge them. And so you go
Speaker 2: back to the very beginning of what you said. No
Speaker 2: one has had the knes to charge them because they
Speaker 2: know they would lose.
Speaker 3: You could not prove the case in court, which is
Speaker 3: why instead you have partisan judges or a partisan Secretary
Speaker 3: of State just asserting it because they believe it is
Speaker 3: a political matter. Now, on our next podcast, what I
Speaker 3: want to walk into and go into is there is
Speaker 3: some history and some Supreme Court history on the Fourteenth
Speaker 3: Amendment in section three right after the Civil War and
Speaker 3: Jefferson Davis in particular. So I'm going to give a
Speaker 3: tease for our next podcast. I'm going to walk through
Speaker 3: what happened with Jefferson Davis under the Fourteenth Amendment Section three.
Speaker 3: But let's be clear, Jefferson Davis, by any measure, engaged
Speaker 3: in dramatically different conduct. Leading the Confederacy and waging war
Speaker 3: with the United States for four years is very different
Speaker 3: from giving a speech telling people to be peaceful and so.
Speaker 3: But there is complicated precedent post Civil War. In the
Speaker 3: next podcast, will dive into that.
Speaker 2: It's going to be very fun. This is why I
Speaker 2: love doing this show. I also will get your political predictions.
Speaker 2: I do want to end with one last thing, just
Speaker 2: so people have that timeline you mentioned earlier. Supreme Court's
Speaker 2: going to hear this When and when do you think
Speaker 2: we'll have a decision from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: February eighth is when they hear the oral argument. I
Speaker 3: think we will get a decision quickly. I think it's
Speaker 3: possible it could be within days. I think it will
Speaker 3: be at the very latest by March fifth, which is
Speaker 3: when the Colorado primary is. And my guess is it'll
Speaker 3: be a week or two. That's just It'll be as
Speaker 3: quick as they can write the opinions. But I think
Speaker 3: they will feel an urge to move quickly.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. It's
Speaker 2: not shocking, but it certainly is a sobering moment. We
Speaker 2: know we have an open southern border. We know that
Speaker 2: more of people on the terrace watch lists were caught
Speaker 2: last year coming across the southern border in the last
Speaker 2: five years before it combined. And now there's a new
Speaker 2: report coming out from Politico that American intel officials are
Speaker 2: warning of a risk of a HESBLO attack not just
Speaker 2: on US men and women around the world and service
Speaker 2: members and some of our bases, but also a real
Speaker 2: elevated risk at home. Four officials familiar with the intelligence
Speaker 2: have confirmed this to Politico that they're worried about attacks
Speaker 2: here outside of what we've seen from ISIS and al Kada,
Speaker 2: where it's lone wolf type attacks, where they could be
Speaker 2: coming into this country, already in this country and planning
Speaker 2: a major attack.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's exactly right. And I've said before,
Speaker 3: I think the risk of a major terrorist attack in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four is greater than it has been at
Speaker 3: any time since September eleventh, two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: That we have right.
Speaker 3: Down number one, a war the Middle East. In Israel,
Speaker 3: Hamas and Hesbela have called upon their terrorists to wage
Speaker 3: jahad not just against Israel but against America. And we
Speaker 3: have an open border on our southern border due to
Speaker 3: Joe Biden the Democrats, nine point six million people have
Speaker 3: crossed illegally in this country under Joe Biden. When I
Speaker 3: was last down on the southern border, I'm down there
Speaker 3: a lot. Multiple border patrol agents told me they were
Speaker 3: deeply concerned about the risk of Hamas terrorists and Hesbela
Speaker 3: terrorists crossing the border because Joe Biden, it continues to
Speaker 3: be an open border to this day. They could be
Speaker 3: crossing right now as we are speaking, Hamas and Hesbela
Speaker 3: terrists could be crossing in. And what is so frustrating
Speaker 3: is if you were a Hamas commander, Ben, you would
Speaker 3: send terrorists in. It's a glaring vulnerability that Joe Biden
Speaker 3: the Democrats don't care to solve. So this political article
Speaker 3: that just came out quoted a senior US intelligence official
Speaker 3: is saying, and this is a quote Hesbela could draw
Speaker 3: on the capability they have to put people in places
Speaker 3: to do something. It is something to be worried about,
Speaker 3: said the official. And this is consist st with We
Speaker 3: did a previous podcast where we read the memo that
Speaker 3: Customs and Border Patrol had sent to border patrol agents
Speaker 3: saying be on particular guard for Hamas and Hesbala terrorists
Speaker 3: and also Palestinian Islamic Jehad terrorists trying to cross the border.
Speaker 3: And it is astonishing to me that even in the
Speaker 3: face of that risk, which suddenly the FBI is publicly acknowledging.
Speaker 3: We're six months ago, they were not acknowledging it, they
Speaker 3: are now, And what that tells me is the classified
Speaker 3: intel is even worse than what we know in public.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't have to leap very far to
Speaker 2: get from point A to point B on something as
Speaker 2: simplistic of Hey, if you are a terrorist organization, are
Speaker 2: you going to take the risk of putting people that
Speaker 2: can be on the terrorists watch list on airplanes and
Speaker 2: try to get them into the country that way? Or
Speaker 2: are you just going to get them to come across
Speaker 2: the southern open border when there's millions of people that
Speaker 2: have already it's worked successfully for You know that if
Speaker 2: you are not on the watch list and they catch you,
Speaker 2: about eighty plus percent of your being released into the
Speaker 2: interior of this country. And if you want to be
Speaker 2: one of the godaways, it's not that hard. You've witnessed
Speaker 2: it firsthand at the southern border. And yet this administration
Speaker 2: refuses to admit that's a national security risk. And I
Speaker 2: think even now if you ask them, they would refuse
Speaker 2: to acknowledge the existence of a real terrorist threat because
Speaker 2: of an open southern border. And you got to ask
Speaker 2: yourself at that point, like what does it take for
Speaker 2: them to get their heads out of the rear end?
Speaker 2: Senator and understand This isn't just about an open border
Speaker 2: a border policy, this is about a national security policy
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 3: Now, look, that's exactly right. You know. Christy Abazide, who
Speaker 3: is the director of the National counter Terrorism Center, said
Speaker 3: during a congressional hearing on October Here's what she said, quote,
Speaker 3: Iran Hezbolah and their linked proxies are trying to calibrate
Speaker 3: their activity, avoiding that would open up a concerted second
Speaker 3: front with the United States or Israel, while still exacting
Speaker 3: costs in the midst of the current conflict. This is
Speaker 3: a very fine line to walk, and in the present
Speaker 3: regional context, their actions carry the potential for miscalculation. This
Speaker 3: is what they're admitting. Here's what Anthony Blink and the
Speaker 3: Secretary of State said, quote this is a moment of
Speaker 3: profound tension in the region. This is a conflict that
Speaker 3: could easily metastasize. And yet even as they're admitting that
Speaker 3: they're not willing to secure the border. Here's what Chris
Speaker 3: Ray said in a congressional hearing on November fifteenth. Quote
Speaker 3: the arrest of individuals in the United States allegedly linked
Speaker 3: to Hesbela's main overseas terrorist arm and their intelligence collection
Speaker 3: and procurement efforts demonstrate Hesbelah's interests in the long term
Speaker 3: contingency planning activities here in the homeland. And none of
Speaker 3: this is persuasive to Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris or
Speaker 3: Alejandro Majorcis or any of the congressional Democrats who are
Speaker 3: all willing to turn a blind eye and say, right now, today,
Speaker 3: whenever you're listening to this podcast, if you're listening to
Speaker 3: this podcast at six in the morning, if you're listening
Speaker 3: to this podcast at noon, if you're listening to this
Speaker 3: podcast at six pm, or if you're listening to this
Speaker 3: podcast at midnight, whatever time you're listening to it, right now,
Speaker 3: there are people crossing illegally into this country, and the
Speaker 3: Biden administration is doing nothing to stop them. In the
Speaker 3: last three years, there have been over two million god Aways.
Speaker 3: Those are people that have evaded capture. We know about them,
Speaker 3: but they didn't turn themselves in, whereas the bulk of
Speaker 3: the people who came did turn themselves in. The god
Speaker 3: Aways are the most dangerous. You want to know where
Speaker 3: the terrorists are, they're the god Aways. You want to
Speaker 3: know where the criminals are, They're the god aways, the murderers,
Speaker 3: the rapists, they're the god aways. You want to know
Speaker 3: where the gang members, the MS thirteen are the godaways?
Speaker 3: And I don't know what it will take to get
Speaker 3: this administration to actually step up and say we're going
Speaker 3: to keep the American people safe from.
Speaker 1: A terror attack? Is it arrogance?
Speaker 2: Last question on this, is it arrogance that you know, oh,
Speaker 2: we know better because there is a younger age that
Speaker 2: is serving in the House now than we've seen that
Speaker 2: maybe doesn't understand or remember truly what happened on nine
Speaker 2: to eleven. Is it an arrogance of the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: that they just don't care about history in the past.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember nine to eleven like it was yesterday.
Speaker 2: I know you do as well, and many Americans do.
Speaker 2: And when you hear this type of threat, you can
Speaker 2: imagine it because you've lived through nine to eleven. You
Speaker 2: can imagine what it looks like when you allow Hasbala
Speaker 2: terrorists to come across the southern border and what they
Speaker 2: can do if they are well trained, which they are,
Speaker 2: and if they can get their hands on what they
Speaker 2: need to carry out a significant tearist attack. And I said,
Speaker 2: here and go, how do you not remember nine to eleven?
Speaker 2: Where is the disconnect here?
Speaker 3: Well, look for one thing, nine to eleven was twenty
Speaker 3: two years ago. Twenty two years ago is a long time.
Speaker 3: You and I. Although we think we're spring chickens, we're
Speaker 3: not anymore. You're in your forties, I'm in my fifties.
Speaker 3: There are a lot of people. There is not a
Speaker 3: single college kid who remembers nine to eleven. There are
Speaker 3: a lot of people in their thirties who nine to
Speaker 3: eleven is a distant memory from their childhood. And look,
Speaker 3: I get it, you know, for me, I think about
Speaker 3: like Pearl Harbor. I know about Pearl Harbor. It's a
Speaker 3: horrible day in history. It's a horrible day in US history.
Speaker 3: But do I have a personal emotional reaction to Pearl Harbor. No,
Speaker 3: it happened long before I was born, so it's kind
Speaker 3: of I've read about it, but I didn't live through it.
Speaker 3: So there is a dynamic that many people in America
Speaker 3: were getting far enough beyond nine to eleven that many
Speaker 3: people don't have a personal acute memory. And then I
Speaker 3: think beyond that, what has happened is that we've seen
Speaker 3: the Democrat Party in Washington radicalized and it's been happening
Speaker 3: for a while. Barack Obama started this process of radicalizing it,
Speaker 3: and then Trump becoming president broke their brains. They hate
Speaker 3: Trump so much that I actually just think they've convinced
Speaker 3: themselves that anything is justified fighting Trump, and the result
Speaker 3: of it is that they're embracing radical policies. And because
Speaker 3: the press, Trump broke the press, the media doesn't report
Speaker 3: on this, and so the Democrats are radicalized because they
Speaker 3: know they will never be asked back home about the
Speaker 3: extreme policies they're supporting.
Speaker 2: As before, If you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 2: dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 2: entire thing. I want to get back to the big story,
Speaker 2: number three of the week. You may have missed one
Speaker 2: other question I want to ask you about this case
Speaker 2: moving forward. You predicted that this is going to be
Speaker 2: probably a very stern Supreme Court on this issue with Colorado.
Speaker 2: As your mind changed at all since we did part
Speaker 2: one on that, I mean, you're back in DC. You've
Speaker 2: seen I guess, more of the press reaction. You've seen
Speaker 2: more of the reaction in Washington. Do you still think
Speaker 2: that the Supreme Court is eager to not only take
Speaker 2: us up, but also to say, hey, you can't in America.
Speaker 2: In the United States of America right now, we let
Speaker 2: the people decide. We don't let people, you know, dictate
Speaker 2: who you can and can't vote for.
Speaker 3: So let me say, I wouldn't say eager is the
Speaker 3: right adjective. They're not eager. The Court would love to
Speaker 3: stay out of this. They don't want to be involved
Speaker 3: in this presidential election. They want to stay out of it.
Speaker 3: But once Colorado ruled that they were pulling Trump off
Speaker 3: the ballot, the Court had to get in. And I
Speaker 3: actually think every justice recognized, Okay, we've got a responsibility.
Speaker 3: We can't duck this. We've got to resolve this, because
Speaker 3: this is the court exists to resolve the most important
Speaker 3: legal issues in the country, particularly concerning the constitution, and
Speaker 3: whether you will allow the voters to vote for a
Speaker 3: candidate for president is right at the top of it.
Speaker 3: Is difficult to imagine a more consequential constitutional issue than that.
Speaker 3: And so I think every justice recognized, even though they
Speaker 3: didn't want to be in this, they had a responsibility
Speaker 3: and they really had no choice. Now, I also believe
Speaker 3: the odds are overwhelming, close to one hundred percent that
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court. I
Speaker 3: just I do not believe they are going to allow
Speaker 3: one of the two major parties candidates for president to
Speaker 3: be removed from the ballot and to tell the vot
Speaker 3: voters you don't get to decide who the president is.
Speaker 3: That is contrary to democracy. It is an assault on democracy. Ironically,
Speaker 3: while Joe Biden is prancing around and proclaiming his defense
Speaker 3: for democracy, he and the Democrats and the media are
Speaker 3: trying to utterly frustrate democracy and stop the voters from
Speaker 3: voting for their opponents. I think the Court is going
Speaker 3: to easily reverse it, and I desperately hope. I got
Speaker 3: to say, there are very few things I have hoped
Speaker 3: for more passionately that I can recall than that. I
Speaker 3: hope that this is unanimous. If it's six ' three,
Speaker 3: if it's the Conservatives voting to reverse and the liberals
Speaker 3: voting to affirm, that is bad for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: It is bad for the country. It is bad for
Speaker 3: the rule of law. It will cement the perception that
Speaker 3: the Court is a political body. And that is disastrous
Speaker 3: for the Court. I am certain that there is no
Speaker 3: human being on the planet that feels that urgency more
Speaker 3: intensely than Chief Justice John Roberts. I know John Roberts
Speaker 3: very very well. We've been friends for thirty years. He
Speaker 3: cares exquisitely about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 3: so I think the Chief Justice is going to bed
Speaker 3: over backwards to find any theory that would produce a
Speaker 3: unanimous decision. There are lots of theories he could do.
Speaker 3: The one I find most persuasive the one if I
Speaker 3: had if Trump had offered me the Scalia seat and
Speaker 3: I'd gotten the nomination in the place of Gorsa to
Speaker 3: the Saiate. He confirmed me if I were a justice.
Speaker 3: The theory that I would be inclined to agree with
Speaker 3: is what I laid out on the last podcast, which
Speaker 3: is it is absolutely true and I think correct that
Speaker 3: if an individual engages in insurrection, they're not eligible to
Speaker 3: be elected to federal office. I'm convinced of that. However,
Speaker 3: what is not clear is how you determine whether someone
Speaker 3: quote engaged in insurrection. As I described in the last podcast,
Speaker 3: the Civil War was indisputably an insurrection. No one can
Speaker 3: dispute that we had a four year war with six
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dead Americans like it was. It is why
Speaker 3: the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three was passed. It was in
Speaker 3: response to the Civil War. It is the embodiment of
Speaker 3: an insurrection. There is a real and acute debate over
Speaker 3: whether what occurred on January sixth, twenty twenty one constitute
Speaker 3: an insurrection. I think the answer is easy. I think
Speaker 3: the answer is hell no. I don't think it remotely
Speaker 3: reaches that level. But there are those who disagree. I
Speaker 3: will acknowledge there's disagreement with almost every damned Democrat in
Speaker 3: all the media. They say routine the insurrection, insurrection, and insurrection. However,
Speaker 3: the constitutional question is how do you determine that someone
Speaker 3: has engaged in an insurrection in the Civil War? Since
Speaker 3: nobody disputed the Civil War was an insurrection, the only
Speaker 3: question did you engage in it? So if you put
Speaker 3: on a Confederate uniform, if you had stars stars on
Speaker 3: your shoulder, you were guilty. Like that, it was easy
Speaker 3: to determine whether you fell into that disqualification.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was. It was as simple as you could
Speaker 1: make it at that point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was no one disputed the Civil War was
Speaker 3: an insurrection, and I'm not aware of anyone that disputed
Speaker 3: if someone was in fact a Confederate officer. I don't
Speaker 3: know have anyone that said, no, no, I wasn't a Confederate officer.
Speaker 3: Like the two pieces were admitted, and so there was
Speaker 3: no meaningful factual dispute here. There is a reason that
Speaker 3: Jack Smith and every other prosecutor, that left wing prosecutor
Speaker 3: that hates Donald Trump, that no, no buddy has charged
Speaker 3: Trump with the crime of insurrection because you couldn't remotely
Speaker 3: prove that. The facts don't demonstrate it. And so I
Speaker 3: think the theory of the Supreme Court will say, and
Speaker 3: I predicted a sentence from Look when this comes down,
Speaker 3: and I think it'll come down, it'll be argued February eighth.
Speaker 3: I'm going to predict it comes down February nineteenth. I'm
Speaker 3: just pulling a date out. It will be some time
Speaker 3: between February eighth and March fourth. I'm pulling a date
Speaker 3: out of the air saying February nineteenth. When it comes down,
Speaker 3: I'm predicting right now, there will be a sentence we
Speaker 3: express no opinion over whether the events of January sixth,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty one constitute an insurrection or not. However, in
Speaker 3: order for the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition to apply, there needs
Speaker 3: to be a conclusive determination that it was at insurrection.
Speaker 3: And for those who urge Trump should be ineligible, or
Speaker 3: the Biden Department of Justice, which has urged Trump should
Speaker 3: be ineligible, they have a path to prove that case,
Speaker 3: which is to charge him with insurrection and convict him
Speaker 3: and obtain a final judgment that he is guilty of insurrection.
Speaker 3: If they do so, he will be ineligible for office.
Speaker 3: But they have not done so. And accordingly, this decision
Speaker 3: should not be made by judges in Colorado or a
Speaker 3: partisan unelected secretary of State in Maine, but rather the
Speaker 3: decision of the next president should be made by the
Speaker 3: voters and the American people. I think that that's what
Speaker 3: I would rule if I were a justice. That is
Speaker 3: the sort of opinion I would write. And my hope
Speaker 3: is I really hope the liberal justices are not infected
Speaker 3: by Trump derangement syndrome, like so many Democrats are, that
Speaker 3: they recognize the damage to the court if they make
Speaker 3: this a partisan decision, will be historic and a rep
Speaker 3: so I pray they don't do that.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson
Speaker 2: podcasts and we will see you back here on Monday morning.