WEBVTT - The Colorado Decision: Randy Zelin Talks To A&G

0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>The Colorado Supreme Court decision was a judicial masterpiece of

0:00:08.039 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>in constitutional interpretation, that the opinion and the decision are

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:18.160
<v Speaker 1>unassailable and irrefutable.

0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:19.320
<v Speaker 2>Wow.

0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:23.599
<v Speaker 3>So that's a retired judge on Jake Tapper's show on

0:00:23.720 --> 0:00:30.440
<v Speaker 3>CNN yesterday calling the Colorado decision a masterpiece of constitutional.

0:00:29.760 --> 0:00:31.800
<v Speaker 2>Law, irrefutable, unassailable.

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 4>Wow.

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:38.239
<v Speaker 3>In other words, anybody with eyes could see that they

0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:40.280
<v Speaker 3>made the right decision. What are the problems I have

0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:43.440
<v Speaker 3>with that? And I'm not I have no legal background whatsoever.

0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:48.000
<v Speaker 3>But Georgia, North Carolina, and Minnesota, for instance, that's just

0:00:48.120 --> 0:00:50.720
<v Speaker 3>three states who have looked at this and said, nah,

0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:52.280
<v Speaker 3>so are all those people dopes?

0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:54.680
<v Speaker 2>They're just all idiots.

0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:56.920
<v Speaker 3>There in Minnesota, all their judges just they can't see

0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:00.360
<v Speaker 3>what's obviously true. How can you ever say that about

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 3>anything that's a controversial decision.

0:01:02.360 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 2>It was a four to three decision, even for the

0:01:04.520 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 2>Colorado Supreme Court.

0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:08.840
<v Speaker 3>So you're saying the three that voted against our morons

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:12.080
<v Speaker 3>shouldn't be within a mile of the law because it's unassailable,

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:13.480
<v Speaker 3>it's obvious what is true.

0:01:13.600 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 2>Thank God for the four that can see with their

0:01:15.280 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 2>own eyes. I just I don't get it.

0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:21.480
<v Speaker 3>I'm fine with this is murky, but I lean toward this,

0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 3>but don't pretend that it's obviously one thing. All right, Well,

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:29.640
<v Speaker 3>I'm glad we're talking to somebody else who can break

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 3>a perspective. Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law attorney

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:37.760
<v Speaker 3>at junct professor at Cornell Law School, frequently seeing on

0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:40.920
<v Speaker 3>Fox News and Fox Business Channel, joins us today, Randy,

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:41.560
<v Speaker 3>how are you today?

0:01:42.800 --> 0:01:44.959
<v Speaker 4>I am well, thank you for having me on.

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:50.320
<v Speaker 3>So unassailable and obviously the right decision.

0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:54.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, it kind of reminds me of a meeting I

0:01:54.600 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 4>was in the other day where a lawyer looked at

0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:00.680
<v Speaker 4>me and started out her argument with it with all

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:05.160
<v Speaker 4>due respect, and I immediately said, don't ever say that

0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 4>to me, because that is code speak for you are

0:02:08.760 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 4>a moron when anyone, and I don't care whether it's

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 4>a retired judge, whether you are on CNN or you

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:21.519
<v Speaker 4>are on Newsmax or you are on with Armstrong, when

0:02:21.560 --> 0:02:27.680
<v Speaker 4>you start your argument with it's unassailable, it's irrefutable, it

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.680
<v Speaker 4>is a masterpiece. It is the Mona Lisa of legal opinions.

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:35.960
<v Speaker 4>That is code speak for this is completely political, It

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:40.960
<v Speaker 4>is completely partisan, and it is anybody but Donald Trump

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:43.080
<v Speaker 4>who should be in office.

0:02:43.360 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 3>That's good. I'm glad you said that. I will keep

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 3>my eye out for that. I have always had a

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 3>problem with that phrase, with all due respect, because it's

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:54.920
<v Speaker 3>usually followed by something that is incredibly disrespectful.

0:02:56.200 --> 0:02:58.400
<v Speaker 4>As soon as you say it to me, I stop you.

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:00.920
<v Speaker 4>And I've learned that the heart way because as a

0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 4>young lawyer, I once said that to a judge and

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:08.280
<v Speaker 4>the judge literally went to throw the gavel at me.

0:03:08.720 --> 0:03:09.440
<v Speaker 2>Let Alone the.

0:03:09.400 --> 0:03:13.200
<v Speaker 4>Book, you don't say that to someone unless you are

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:15.519
<v Speaker 4>suggesting to them that they.

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:18.960
<v Speaker 3>Are more on Well, so I've been harping on this

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 3>today because I think it's a really big deal. The

0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:25.040
<v Speaker 3>Washington Post editorial board said, no, we can't let a

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 3>Colorado court, you know, a handful of judges in Colorado

0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:31.080
<v Speaker 3>decide who gets to be president or not.

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:32.639
<v Speaker 2>That's not the way our systems should work.

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 3>They're more arguing it from a let's let the voters

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 3>decide than the legal merits.

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 2>Well, from the legal merits.

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:40.720
<v Speaker 3>What do you think the Supreme Court is going to

0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:42.280
<v Speaker 3>do with this, assuming they take it up.

0:03:43.360 --> 0:03:47.680
<v Speaker 4>Well, the fundamental question, as I see it, is really

0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 4>twofold because when you look at section three of Article fourteen,

0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:58.320
<v Speaker 4>and that is the words, those are the words that

0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:04.080
<v Speaker 4>we're all hanging on to. It's clear that when that

0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:09.320
<v Speaker 4>amendment was drawn back in what eighteen sixty eight or so,

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 4>not a lot of thought was given to the possibility

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:18.360
<v Speaker 4>that it could be a presidential candidate running for office.

0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 4>Because the amendment says nothing about whether or not you

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:31.360
<v Speaker 4>have to be convicted from a criminal standpoint, found libel

0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 4>from a civil standpoint, or found to have actually done

0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:42.159
<v Speaker 4>it by some court, by some tribunal, by somebody. All

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 4>it says is if you engage in insurrection, Well, the

0:04:47.440 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 4>problem is who determines whether or not you've engaged in it.

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 4>The easy answer would be, well, you've been convicted of it.

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 4>The easy answer would be you were called in for

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:03.440
<v Speaker 4>a congressional hearing and you were found to have engaged

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:06.799
<v Speaker 4>in an active insurrection. We put it to the vote

0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.520
<v Speaker 4>of all of the citizens of the United States by referendum,

0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:13.800
<v Speaker 4>and the citizens of the United States decided by a

0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 4>majority or by some other percentage that you engaged in

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 4>an act of insurrection. So the fundamental question that the

0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:26.080
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court has to grapple with is who decides whether

0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:29.240
<v Speaker 4>or not you've engaged in it. What does it mean

0:05:29.920 --> 0:05:33.600
<v Speaker 4>to engage in an active insurrection?

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:38.120
<v Speaker 3>So, I've taken in a lot of legal podcasts in

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 3>the last twenty four hours on this and heard a

0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:41.840
<v Speaker 3>lot of different opinions, and I hope I don't get

0:05:41.839 --> 0:05:43.839
<v Speaker 3>two in the weeds on this, but I heard the

0:05:43.920 --> 0:05:46.120
<v Speaker 3>argument made that this is one of those things that's

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:48.400
<v Speaker 3>self activating.

0:05:48.520 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 2>I guess that's the term.

0:05:49.800 --> 0:05:51.839
<v Speaker 3>In other words, you know, are there things in the constitution,

0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 3>like if you want to be president you have to

0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 3>be a natural born citizen.

0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:56.719
<v Speaker 2>That's self activating.

0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 3>A court doesn't need to find it, there doesn't need

0:05:59.200 --> 0:06:01.320
<v Speaker 3>to be a conviction or anything like that. It's just

0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 3>this is what it is. And you're not, you know,

0:06:04.279 --> 0:06:06.760
<v Speaker 3>you don't meet the standards. And they're saying that this

0:06:07.000 --> 0:06:10.240
<v Speaker 3>is that sort of thing that you incited an insurrection.

0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 3>But it doesn't seem like it can because, like you said,

0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:14.960
<v Speaker 3>there's a gray area on what an insurrection is about.

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 4>Now, when you talk about those things that you call

0:06:18.320 --> 0:06:23.160
<v Speaker 4>self activating, that means they are objectives, they are set

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:26.760
<v Speaker 4>in stone, that is something that's irrefutable. For example, when

0:06:26.800 --> 0:06:30.280
<v Speaker 4>you look at the qualifications to be president. Let's look

0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:32.840
<v Speaker 4>at it backwards and say, Okay, what are those things

0:06:32.920 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 4>that disqualify you from being president? Well, one of them

0:06:36.560 --> 0:06:38.120
<v Speaker 4>is if you're not born in the country.

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:40.080
<v Speaker 2>So that's easy.

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:45.359
<v Speaker 4>You're either born here or you're not. You have to

0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:49.280
<v Speaker 4>be thirty five years old. Well, you either are thirty

0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 4>five or you're not. We don't need to have a

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:59.640
<v Speaker 4>legal debate over that. But you cannot compare the question

0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 4>of whether or not you engaged in an active insurrection

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 4>to be the same as are you at least thirty

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:10.880
<v Speaker 4>five years old? Were you born in the United States?

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:14.680
<v Speaker 4>I mean that that to me is silly and it's

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:16.760
<v Speaker 4>intellectually dishonest.

0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:18.640
<v Speaker 2>That's interesting.

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 3>I wish I remember the name of the lawyer that

0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 3>I heard making that argument on a podcast, because he's

0:07:22.360 --> 0:07:25.640
<v Speaker 3>a highly placed, well respected guy. But I felt the

0:07:25.680 --> 0:07:28.720
<v Speaker 3>same way about it as you did, and I have

0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 3>no legal background whatsoever. So ultimately, before I get you

0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:34.880
<v Speaker 3>off the phone, what do you think the Supreme Court

0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 3>is going to do? Do you think it'll be a

0:07:36.960 --> 0:07:40.360
<v Speaker 3>nine to zero close call, it will be overturned? What

0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 3>do you think the result is going to be.

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:47.119
<v Speaker 4>I think they're going to punt on this. I haven't

0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:50.040
<v Speaker 4>quite decided how they're going to punt on it, but

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:53.920
<v Speaker 4>I think they will punt, and it will end up

0:07:54.480 --> 0:08:02.400
<v Speaker 4>being something that a Supreme court, a lower Supreme court

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:08.239
<v Speaker 4>should not be permitted to determine. I do not believe

0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 4>that the Supreme Court of the United States is going

0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:16.320
<v Speaker 4>to hold today or anytime soon, that Donald Trump can

0:08:16.360 --> 0:08:20.239
<v Speaker 4>be held off of a state ballot as a result

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.960
<v Speaker 4>of having engaged in an active insurrection, Because if the

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:27.880
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court were to do that, that now becomes president

0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:33.280
<v Speaker 4>president for all of these other Blue states that want

0:08:33.400 --> 0:08:36.760
<v Speaker 4>and would love nothing more than to keep Trump off

0:08:36.800 --> 0:08:40.600
<v Speaker 4>of the ballot. So I think from a presidential standpoint,

0:08:40.880 --> 0:08:45.199
<v Speaker 4>from an optical standpoint, from the standpoint of not having

0:08:45.240 --> 0:08:48.920
<v Speaker 4>this country tear it apart, tear itself apart further, and

0:08:49.040 --> 0:08:52.040
<v Speaker 4>maybe start pushing us even closer to a civil war,

0:08:53.360 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 4>there is no way, in my humble opinion, that the

0:08:56.240 --> 0:08:59.319
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court will say, you know something, if you want

0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:02.120
<v Speaker 4>to keep Trump off the ballot because you believe he

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:06.640
<v Speaker 4>engaged in an act of insurrection, knock yourself out.

0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:10.080
<v Speaker 2>Wow, that is really interesting. Thanks for your time today.

0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:12.720
<v Speaker 3>Randy Zellen, former prosecutor and constitutional law.

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:15.720
<v Speaker 2>Attorney Armstrong and Getty