1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: The Colorado Supreme Court decision was a judicial masterpiece of

2
00:00:08,039 --> 00:00:14,360
Speaker 1: in constitutional interpretation, that the opinion and the decision are

3
00:00:15,080 --> 00:00:18,160
Speaker 1: unassailable and irrefutable.

4
00:00:18,880 --> 00:00:19,320
Speaker 2: Wow.

5
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:23,599
Speaker 3: So that's a retired judge on Jake Tapper's show on

6
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 3: CNN yesterday calling the Colorado decision a masterpiece of constitutional.

7
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 2: Law, irrefutable, unassailable.

8
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 4: Wow.

9
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:38,239
Speaker 3: In other words, anybody with eyes could see that they

10
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:40,280
Speaker 3: made the right decision. What are the problems I have

11
00:00:40,400 --> 00:00:43,440
Speaker 3: with that? And I'm not I have no legal background whatsoever.

12
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:48,000
Speaker 3: But Georgia, North Carolina, and Minnesota, for instance, that's just

13
00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:50,720
Speaker 3: three states who have looked at this and said, nah,

14
00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:52,280
Speaker 3: so are all those people dopes?

15
00:00:53,240 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 2: They're just all idiots.

16
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:56,920
Speaker 3: There in Minnesota, all their judges just they can't see

17
00:00:56,960 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 3: what's obviously true. How can you ever say that about

18
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 3: anything that's a controversial decision.

19
00:01:02,360 --> 00:01:04,520
Speaker 2: It was a four to three decision, even for the

20
00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court.

21
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:08,840
Speaker 3: So you're saying the three that voted against our morons

22
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 3: shouldn't be within a mile of the law because it's unassailable,

23
00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:13,480
Speaker 3: it's obvious what is true.

24
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:15,240
Speaker 2: Thank God for the four that can see with their

25
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:17,600
Speaker 2: own eyes. I just I don't get it.

26
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 3: I'm fine with this is murky, but I lean toward this,

27
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:26,679
Speaker 3: but don't pretend that it's obviously one thing. All right, Well,

28
00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,640
Speaker 3: I'm glad we're talking to somebody else who can break

29
00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:33,560
Speaker 3: a perspective. Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law attorney

30
00:01:33,840 --> 00:01:37,760
Speaker 3: at junct professor at Cornell Law School, frequently seeing on

31
00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 3: Fox News and Fox Business Channel, joins us today, Randy,

32
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:41,560
Speaker 3: how are you today?

33
00:01:42,800 --> 00:01:44,959
Speaker 4: I am well, thank you for having me on.

34
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:50,320
Speaker 3: So unassailable and obviously the right decision.

35
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:54,480
Speaker 4: Well, it kind of reminds me of a meeting I

36
00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 4: was in the other day where a lawyer looked at

37
00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:00,680
Speaker 4: me and started out her argument with it with all

38
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:05,160
Speaker 4: due respect, and I immediately said, don't ever say that

39
00:02:05,240 --> 00:02:08,720
Speaker 4: to me, because that is code speak for you are

40
00:02:08,760 --> 00:02:14,040
Speaker 4: a moron when anyone, and I don't care whether it's

41
00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:17,360
Speaker 4: a retired judge, whether you are on CNN or you

42
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:21,519
Speaker 4: are on Newsmax or you are on with Armstrong, when

43
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:27,680
Speaker 4: you start your argument with it's unassailable, it's irrefutable, it

44
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:31,680
Speaker 4: is a masterpiece. It is the Mona Lisa of legal opinions.

45
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:35,960
Speaker 4: That is code speak for this is completely political, It

46
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:40,960
Speaker 4: is completely partisan, and it is anybody but Donald Trump

47
00:02:41,160 --> 00:02:43,080
Speaker 4: who should be in office.

48
00:02:43,360 --> 00:02:46,720
Speaker 3: That's good. I'm glad you said that. I will keep

49
00:02:46,760 --> 00:02:48,560
Speaker 3: my eye out for that. I have always had a

50
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:51,280
Speaker 3: problem with that phrase, with all due respect, because it's

51
00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:54,920
Speaker 3: usually followed by something that is incredibly disrespectful.

52
00:02:56,200 --> 00:02:58,400
Speaker 4: As soon as you say it to me, I stop you.

53
00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:00,920
Speaker 4: And I've learned that the heart way because as a

54
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:04,080
Speaker 4: young lawyer, I once said that to a judge and

55
00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:08,280
Speaker 4: the judge literally went to throw the gavel at me.

56
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:09,440
Speaker 2: Let Alone the.

57
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:13,200
Speaker 4: Book, you don't say that to someone unless you are

58
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:15,519
Speaker 4: suggesting to them that they.

59
00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:18,960
Speaker 3: Are more on Well, so I've been harping on this

60
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 3: today because I think it's a really big deal. The

61
00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 3: Washington Post editorial board said, no, we can't let a

62
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 3: Colorado court, you know, a handful of judges in Colorado

63
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:31,080
Speaker 3: decide who gets to be president or not.

64
00:03:31,160 --> 00:03:32,639
Speaker 2: That's not the way our systems should work.

65
00:03:32,800 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 3: They're more arguing it from a let's let the voters

66
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 3: decide than the legal merits.

67
00:03:37,600 --> 00:03:39,400
Speaker 2: Well, from the legal merits.

68
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 3: What do you think the Supreme Court is going to

69
00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:42,280
Speaker 3: do with this, assuming they take it up.

70
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 4: Well, the fundamental question, as I see it, is really

71
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 4: twofold because when you look at section three of Article fourteen,

72
00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:58,320
Speaker 4: and that is the words, those are the words that

73
00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:04,080
Speaker 4: we're all hanging on to. It's clear that when that

74
00:04:04,200 --> 00:04:09,320
Speaker 4: amendment was drawn back in what eighteen sixty eight or so,

75
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:12,440
Speaker 4: not a lot of thought was given to the possibility

76
00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:18,360
Speaker 4: that it could be a presidential candidate running for office.

77
00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:26,320
Speaker 4: Because the amendment says nothing about whether or not you

78
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:31,360
Speaker 4: have to be convicted from a criminal standpoint, found libel

79
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:36,760
Speaker 4: from a civil standpoint, or found to have actually done

80
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:42,159
Speaker 4: it by some court, by some tribunal, by somebody. All

81
00:04:42,200 --> 00:04:47,320
Speaker 4: it says is if you engage in insurrection, Well, the

82
00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:52,960
Speaker 4: problem is who determines whether or not you've engaged in it.

83
00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:56,080
Speaker 4: The easy answer would be, well, you've been convicted of it.

84
00:04:56,560 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 4: The easy answer would be you were called in for

85
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 4: a congressional hearing and you were found to have engaged

86
00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:06,799
Speaker 4: in an active insurrection. We put it to the vote

87
00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:10,520
Speaker 4: of all of the citizens of the United States by referendum,

88
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:13,800
Speaker 4: and the citizens of the United States decided by a

89
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:17,440
Speaker 4: majority or by some other percentage that you engaged in

90
00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 4: an act of insurrection. So the fundamental question that the

91
00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:26,080
Speaker 4: Supreme Court has to grapple with is who decides whether

92
00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:29,240
Speaker 4: or not you've engaged in it. What does it mean

93
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:33,600
Speaker 4: to engage in an active insurrection?

94
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 2: Right?

95
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 3: So, I've taken in a lot of legal podcasts in

96
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:40,360
Speaker 3: the last twenty four hours on this and heard a

97
00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:41,840
Speaker 3: lot of different opinions, and I hope I don't get

98
00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:43,839
Speaker 3: two in the weeds on this, but I heard the

99
00:05:43,920 --> 00:05:46,120
Speaker 3: argument made that this is one of those things that's

100
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 3: self activating.

101
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:49,520
Speaker 2: I guess that's the term.

102
00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:51,839
Speaker 3: In other words, you know, are there things in the constitution,

103
00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 3: like if you want to be president you have to

104
00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 3: be a natural born citizen.

105
00:05:55,640 --> 00:05:56,719
Speaker 2: That's self activating.

106
00:05:56,760 --> 00:05:59,200
Speaker 3: A court doesn't need to find it, there doesn't need

107
00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:01,320
Speaker 3: to be a conviction or anything like that. It's just

108
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:04,240
Speaker 3: this is what it is. And you're not, you know,

109
00:06:04,279 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 3: you don't meet the standards. And they're saying that this

110
00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:10,240
Speaker 3: is that sort of thing that you incited an insurrection.

111
00:06:10,320 --> 00:06:12,240
Speaker 3: But it doesn't seem like it can because, like you said,

112
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 3: there's a gray area on what an insurrection is about.

113
00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:18,160
Speaker 4: Now, when you talk about those things that you call

114
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:23,160
Speaker 4: self activating, that means they are objectives, they are set

115
00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 4: in stone, that is something that's irrefutable. For example, when

116
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,280
Speaker 4: you look at the qualifications to be president. Let's look

117
00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:32,840
Speaker 4: at it backwards and say, Okay, what are those things

118
00:06:32,920 --> 00:06:36,440
Speaker 4: that disqualify you from being president? Well, one of them

119
00:06:36,560 --> 00:06:38,120
Speaker 4: is if you're not born in the country.

120
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:40,080
Speaker 2: So that's easy.

121
00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:45,359
Speaker 4: You're either born here or you're not. You have to

122
00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:49,280
Speaker 4: be thirty five years old. Well, you either are thirty

123
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:54,520
Speaker 4: five or you're not. We don't need to have a

124
00:06:54,600 --> 00:06:59,640
Speaker 4: legal debate over that. But you cannot compare the question

125
00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 4: of whether or not you engaged in an active insurrection

126
00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 4: to be the same as are you at least thirty

127
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:10,880
Speaker 4: five years old? Were you born in the United States?

128
00:07:11,000 --> 00:07:14,680
Speaker 4: I mean that that to me is silly and it's

129
00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:16,760
Speaker 4: intellectually dishonest.

130
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:18,640
Speaker 2: That's interesting.

131
00:07:18,640 --> 00:07:20,280
Speaker 3: I wish I remember the name of the lawyer that

132
00:07:20,280 --> 00:07:22,360
Speaker 3: I heard making that argument on a podcast, because he's

133
00:07:22,360 --> 00:07:25,640
Speaker 3: a highly placed, well respected guy. But I felt the

134
00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 3: same way about it as you did, and I have

135
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,160
Speaker 3: no legal background whatsoever. So ultimately, before I get you

136
00:07:32,200 --> 00:07:34,880
Speaker 3: off the phone, what do you think the Supreme Court

137
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:36,840
Speaker 3: is going to do? Do you think it'll be a

138
00:07:36,960 --> 00:07:40,360
Speaker 3: nine to zero close call, it will be overturned? What

139
00:07:40,400 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 3: do you think the result is going to be.

140
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,119
Speaker 4: I think they're going to punt on this. I haven't

141
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 4: quite decided how they're going to punt on it, but

142
00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:53,920
Speaker 4: I think they will punt, and it will end up

143
00:07:54,480 --> 00:08:02,400
Speaker 4: being something that a Supreme court, a lower Supreme court

144
00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:08,239
Speaker 4: should not be permitted to determine. I do not believe

145
00:08:08,360 --> 00:08:10,720
Speaker 4: that the Supreme Court of the United States is going

146
00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 4: to hold today or anytime soon, that Donald Trump can

147
00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:20,239
Speaker 4: be held off of a state ballot as a result

148
00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:23,960
Speaker 4: of having engaged in an active insurrection, Because if the

149
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 4: Supreme Court were to do that, that now becomes president

150
00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:33,280
Speaker 4: president for all of these other Blue states that want

151
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 4: and would love nothing more than to keep Trump off

152
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:40,600
Speaker 4: of the ballot. So I think from a presidential standpoint,

153
00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:45,199
Speaker 4: from an optical standpoint, from the standpoint of not having

154
00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,920
Speaker 4: this country tear it apart, tear itself apart further, and

155
00:08:49,040 --> 00:08:52,040
Speaker 4: maybe start pushing us even closer to a civil war,

156
00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:56,160
Speaker 4: there is no way, in my humble opinion, that the

157
00:08:56,240 --> 00:08:59,319
Speaker 4: Supreme Court will say, you know something, if you want

158
00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:02,120
Speaker 4: to keep Trump off the ballot because you believe he

159
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:06,640
Speaker 4: engaged in an act of insurrection, knock yourself out.

160
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,080
Speaker 2: Wow, that is really interesting. Thanks for your time today.

161
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:12,720
Speaker 3: Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law.

162
00:09:12,760 --> 00:09:15,720
Speaker 2: Attorney Armstrong and Getty