Speaker 1: Senator Colorado banned Donald Trump from the ballot. A bunch
Speaker 1: of other states decided they wanted to do the exact
Speaker 1: same thing, and now this is all going to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. We thought it was appropriate to spend some
Speaker 1: serious time on the podcast today talking about this issue.
Speaker 1: Why was Colorado chosen to be the case that would
Speaker 1: go to the Supreme Court over the other states that
Speaker 1: had also done the same thing, because Trump's team and
Speaker 1: they had options here, Why was it Colorado and what
Speaker 1: does this mean moving forward?
Speaker 2: Well, Colorado was really the only option. We have two decisions.
Speaker 2: We have Colorado and Maine. Colorado was a decision from
Speaker 2: the state Supreme Court. It was a decision that was
Speaker 2: four to three, and a decision from a state supreme
Speaker 2: court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. What
Speaker 2: happened in Maine was it was a decision from the
Speaker 2: Secretary of State. So it was an individual It was
Speaker 2: not a court that decided it was the secretary of state.
Speaker 2: Secretary of State is not a lawyer. She is not
Speaker 2: an elected official by the people. She is elected by
Speaker 2: the state legislature.
Speaker 3: In Maine. She made a determination.
Speaker 2: The next step in Maine is for that to be
Speaker 2: challenged in Maine.
Speaker 3: Judicial court, in state court.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you can't appeal from the main Secretary of
Speaker 2: State to the US Supreme Court because the only option
Speaker 2: was in Colorado was the only option. Appeals to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court as a general matter, lie either from state
Speaker 2: supreme courts or lie from federal courts of appeal. And
Speaker 2: so the way the courts work, you have a federal
Speaker 2: system and you have a state system. Typically both are
Speaker 2: set up with trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and then
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. And so in the state you have
Speaker 2: typically a trial court, intermediapellate court, the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 2: from the state supreme court you can appeal to the
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court, although you can only appeal a question
Speaker 2: of federal law. So Colorado can determine Colorado's state law
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court doesn't determine
Speaker 2: Colorado state law. But in this instance the question is
Speaker 2: overwhelmingly it is entirely one of federal law, namely what
Speaker 2: the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution means.
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court to be clear, and this is
Speaker 1: where it's gotten complicated. When you go before the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court in this case with Colorado, the argument that's going
Speaker 1: to be made. Is it going to be about whether
Speaker 1: there was insurrection and he was in charge of that insurrection,
Speaker 1: therefore he should be disqualified with a fourteen amendment. Or
Speaker 1: is this about a state overstepping and saying we believe
Speaker 1: that he was a guy that was involved in insurrection,
Speaker 1: so therefore we can take him off the bout or
Speaker 1: is it really a combination of both.
Speaker 2: So it'll be both, and let me break down. Look unverdict.
Speaker 2: When the Colorado decision came down, when the main decision
Speaker 2: came down, we said on this podcast, I predicted the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court would do exactly what it's done, that the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court would take the case, and that they would
Speaker 2: take it quickly. That is what has happened. So they've
Speaker 2: taken it.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: They've set the oral argument for February eighth, so that
Speaker 2: is exceptionally fast. Generally, when the Supreme Court takes a case,
Speaker 2: you have months to file briefs and the oral argument
Speaker 2: is six months down the road. In this instance, the
Speaker 2: oral argument is a month from now. The parties will
Speaker 2: file their briefs in the next couple of weeks. So
Speaker 2: they are furiously writing their briefs right now.
Speaker 1: And when you say the party is to be clear,
Speaker 1: that is the Colorado Attorney General and her staff is
Speaker 1: going to be filing on their side. And then who's
Speaker 1: going to be filing this is it Trump's personal legal
Speaker 1: team or is in the campaign.
Speaker 2: Out well, So the Colorado Republican Party has filed an appeal,
Speaker 2: Trump will certainly file, will participate in it. You will
Speaker 2: have other meeky friends of the court. And what I
Speaker 2: want to do for this podcast is two things. Want
Speaker 2: to tell you what I think the Court's going to
Speaker 2: do and why. But two then I want to just
Speaker 2: explain the details of the legal arguments that are playing out,
Speaker 2: because this is complicated, it's hard to understand, and it's
Speaker 2: important to understand. I believe the US Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, and I think
Speaker 2: there is a very good chance that the U. S
Speaker 2: Supreme Court will do so unanimously. Really, I think if
Speaker 2: I were to put the odds of a unanimous decision,
Speaker 2: I'd say the odds of unanims decision are sixty to
Speaker 2: seventy percent.
Speaker 1: You say that, and there's gonna be what the listener,
Speaker 1: they are gonna be shocked. I'm one of them. And
Speaker 1: here's why I feel like I've lost some faith in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, specifically over Roe v. Wade and the
Speaker 1: leaking of that decision, and also the fact that clearly
Speaker 1: there had to be people that knew who leaked it,
Speaker 1: and we still haven't found out who the leaker is.
Speaker 1: There's no indication we ever are going to figure out
Speaker 1: who the leaker is, which is I think also shocking.
Speaker 1: So when you come back and you say nine to oh,
Speaker 1: tell me why you have that much faith.
Speaker 3: So I think a number of things.
Speaker 2: I think number one, the Chief Justice John Roberts is
Speaker 2: going to be deeply invested in wanting this to be unanimous,
Speaker 2: in not having the Supreme Court appear partisan. Every justice
Speaker 2: is going to be aware this is a decision that's
Speaker 2: going to be watched by the country and watched by
Speaker 2: the world, and every justice is aware of not wanting
Speaker 2: the Court to appear like a political or partisan body.
Speaker 2: John Roberts, whom I know very very well. As you know,
Speaker 2: I clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. John Roberts clerk
Speaker 2: for Chief Justice Renquist as well. He's been a friend
Speaker 2: of mine for thirty years. He cares deeply about the
Speaker 2: institutional legacy of the Court, and he is going to
Speaker 2: be deeply motivated a unanimous decision, I think he will believe,
Speaker 2: and I think all of the justices will believe. Is
Speaker 2: the best for the Court and the best for the country.
Speaker 1: Is that because a precedent moving forward that ten years,
Speaker 1: twenty years from now, we could see this happen again,
Speaker 1: where a political party decides we're just going to try
Speaker 1: to throw a guy off the ballot.
Speaker 4: It could be a Democrat next time.
Speaker 2: Look, the precedent on this is terrible and what the
Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court did was lawless, and we'll walk through
Speaker 2: it that in a minute. But here's what I think
Speaker 2: will happen. So, by the way, to give you a
Speaker 2: sense of the scope of it, if the US Supreme
Speaker 2: Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Donald Trump would
Speaker 2: be struck from the ballot. And if that determination was made,
Speaker 2: it's not binding on the other states, but the other
Speaker 2: states within very short order, Trump would be removed from
Speaker 2: the ballot in all fifty states. So if the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court decided fifty.
Speaker 1: So not just Democrat states or there's a Democrat attorney
Speaker 1: general there. You're saying all over the country.
Speaker 2: The only ground on which the US Supreme Court could
Speaker 2: affirm the Colorado Supreme Court is to conclude that Trump
Speaker 2: is barred from running for office because of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 2: Section three the Constitution. If the Supreme Court concludes that,
Speaker 2: every state will remove them from the ballot, and you
Speaker 2: will have courts order every state to do that. So
Speaker 2: that would be a nationwide decision. Now, it would also
Speaker 2: be a decision that would be so profoundly anti democratic,
Speaker 2: and I think it would rip this country apart. And
Speaker 2: the Court doesn't want to do that. You know, there's
Speaker 2: a rich irony democrats. What they tell you, what they
Speaker 2: accuse their opponents of doing, almost inevitably, is what in
Speaker 2: fact they are doing. Every Democrat right now is beating
Speaker 2: their chests saying we must save democracy. Joe Biden just
Speaker 2: gave a ludicrously self righteous speech saying we must save democracy,
Speaker 2: by which he means elect democrats. And nothing saves democracy
Speaker 2: or defends democracy like throwing your opponent off the ballot,
Speaker 2: so to stop the voters from voting for him. Understand
Speaker 2: why the Democrats are doing this they're afraid the voters
Speaker 2: will vote for Donald Trump if he's on the ballot,
Speaker 2: and so they're trying to prevent democracy. I don't think
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is going to have any interest in
Speaker 2: playing a part in preventing democracy, in stifling the right
Speaker 2: of the voters to decide. And here's how I actually
Speaker 2: think it will play out. I think John Roberts in particular,
Speaker 2: is going to go to Elena Kagan. Elena Kagan is
Speaker 2: the smartest of the liberal justices. She was the dean
Speaker 2: of the Harvard Law School, she was the United States
Speaker 2: Solicitor General. She is a very very smart, talented lawyer.
Speaker 2: And I think Roberts is going to try very hard
Speaker 2: to make the personal case each of the justices that
Speaker 2: the Court needs to be united. By the way, that's
Speaker 2: not unprecedent. If you look at Brown versus Board of Education,
Speaker 2: which was the case in nineteen fifty four that struck
Speaker 2: down segregated schools. That decision was unanimous. Earl Warren was
Speaker 2: the Chief Justice. He understood that that decision was a big,
Speaker 2: big deal. Segregated schools had been allowed under a decision
Speaker 2: called Plessy versus Ferguson, a terrible decision, and Brown overruled
Speaker 2: Plessy and Earl Warren thought it was critically important that
Speaker 2: the Court speak unanimously that there'll be no division on
Speaker 2: a Christian that would impact every American. I think this
Speaker 2: is of a similar magnitude, and given the political context,
Speaker 2: I think every justice will feel an urge to have
Speaker 2: the Court not appear to be a political branch.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: You mentioned, by the way, in a previous verdict, that
Speaker 1: the justice don't necessarily talk a lot to each other,
Speaker 1: almost never.
Speaker 4: They operate as almost like independent law firms. As you
Speaker 4: described it.
Speaker 1: This seems different in this scenario where you're saying there
Speaker 1: will be almost in essence, like a lobbying for the
Speaker 1: sanctity of the court in essence and for the country, like, hey,
Speaker 1: we need to all get together on this one.
Speaker 4: This is different and.
Speaker 1: You believe that's probably how it's going to play. And
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen very often, correct.
Speaker 2: It happens very very rarely. In this instance, I think
Speaker 2: it was a no brainer the Court would take it.
Speaker 2: It didn't surprise me at all, and by the way
Speaker 2: it was going to be argued on February eighth, we
Speaker 2: will get a decision.
Speaker 3: I think by the middle of February.
Speaker 2: We'll have a decision within a week or two or three.
Speaker 1: Who decides at the Supreme Court to take a case
Speaker 1: quickly and walk us just through that?
Speaker 4: Does that have to be a lot of justices.
Speaker 2: So what was filed is what's called a petition for
Speaker 2: rid of cercherari. That is a request for the court
Speaker 2: to hear an appeal. The Supreme Court is unusual in
Speaker 2: that many courts of appeals, most courts of appeals, you
Speaker 2: have an appeal by right. In other words, if you
Speaker 2: file an appeal, the court has to take it. If
Speaker 2: you have a case in federal district court, you're convicted
Speaker 2: of a crime, or you have a civil lawsuit, you
Speaker 2: assue me and you lose, you can file an appeal
Speaker 2: as of right. And if you're in federal district court
Speaker 2: here you would appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Speaker 2: Appeals and the Fifth Circuit will take that appeal.
Speaker 3: It has no choice.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has what's called a discretionary jurisdiction, which
Speaker 2: means it chooses which cases to take. In a typical year,
Speaker 2: they are about eight thousand wow. Cert petitions is what
Speaker 2: they're called petitions for sorcer or. Everyone calls them cert petitions.
Speaker 2: They're about eight thousand. The Court typically takes about eighty,
Speaker 2: so it takes about one percent of the appeals it
Speaker 2: says yes. It takes four justices to vote to grant cert.
Speaker 2: I believe this case was a no brainer. I think
Speaker 2: all nine of them agreed we needed to take it.
Speaker 2: I don't think they hesitated on, of course, whether or
Speaker 2: not one of the two major party nominees is excluded
Speaker 2: from the ballots and the voters are prevented from voting
Speaker 2: under the Constitution. It is difficult to imagine a more
Speaker 2: consequential question and a question that demands the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: get it. Look, I don't think the Court was eager
Speaker 2: to get into this issue at all. If Colorado hadn't decided.
Speaker 4: This, they went to have touched it.
Speaker 2: The Justices are not looking to opine on this, but
Speaker 2: once Colorado ruled, they had no choice, and they had
Speaker 2: no choice but to do it quickly.
Speaker 1: All right, real quick, though, Let's talk about your finances.
Speaker 1: It's twenty twenty four and a lot of us are
Speaker 1: trying to get our finances in order. There are some
Speaker 1: great news for homeowners. Interest rates have dropped and are
Speaker 1: now in the fives, a lot lower than what they
Speaker 1: were last year. If you've been buried in high interest
Speaker 1: credit card debt, now's the time to break free. American
Speaker 1: Financing can help you access the cash in your home
Speaker 1: to pay off your high interest debt. Last year, their
Speaker 1: salary based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of
Speaker 1: eight hundred and fifty four dollars a month. That's like
Speaker 1: giving yourself a ten thousand dollars rais what a way
Speaker 1: to start the new year off. And if you start today,
Speaker 1: you may be able to delay two mortgage payments. Call
Speaker 1: American Financing today eight and eight six seven five forty nine.
Speaker 1: That's eight and eight six seven five forty nine. Americanfinancing
Speaker 1: dot net MLS eighteen twenty three thirty four MLS, Consumer
Speaker 1: Access dot Org APR for rates and the five start
Speaker 1: at six point.
Speaker 4: Four zero For well qualified borrowers.
Speaker 1: Call eight and eight six seven five forty nine for
Speaker 1: details about credit costs and terms. What was the mentality
Speaker 1: of the court when you were part of the Bush
Speaker 1: team in Bush v. Gore when they took that pretty
Speaker 1: quickly as well, So that was that was really fast,
Speaker 1: seems a lot like this timeline. They weren't eager to
Speaker 1: get involved in that either, if I remember correctly, walk
Speaker 1: us through that comparison.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Bush versus Gore, I was part of the
Speaker 2: legal team representing George W. Bush in the year two thousand.
Speaker 2: That entire legal proceeding took thirty six days, and I
Speaker 2: was down in Florida and Tallahassee as a baby lawyer.
Speaker 2: I was twenty nine years old, but part of the
Speaker 2: legal team, one of the most junior members of the
Speaker 2: legal team, but part of the legal team litigating in
Speaker 2: that particular case. We went to the US Supreme Court twice,
Speaker 2: and in those thirty six days, the Supreme Court heard
Speaker 2: two appeals. Those two appeals were briefed, they heard or arguments,
Speaker 2: and they issued decisions, and both of those played out
Speaker 2: within the thirty six days. So the court can move
Speaker 2: exceptionally quickly if there is an urgency to do so.
Speaker 2: It was interesting in Bush versus Gore there was a
Speaker 2: divide of opinion among the lawyers representing Bush as to
Speaker 2: whether the court would take the case really, and the divide,
Speaker 2: by and large was the divide between those who had
Speaker 2: clerked at the court and those who had not clerked
Speaker 2: at the court. Almost without exception those of us who
Speaker 2: had been law clerks at the Supreme Court believe the
Speaker 2: Court would take the case that even though in two
Speaker 2: thousand the Court was not eager to get in the
Speaker 2: presidential race, it required there was a responsibility for the
Speaker 2: Court to resolve it.
Speaker 3: I think that's exactly what they feel here now. Given that.
Speaker 2: If it's going to be a unanimous decision, and as
Speaker 2: I said, I think it is more likely than not
Speaker 2: that it is, then the Court is not going to
Speaker 2: rule I believe that there was not an insurrection, Like
Speaker 2: that's one ground you could reverse as say there was
Speaker 2: not an insurrection.
Speaker 3: Why is that going to be the case?
Speaker 2: Look, I don't think there was an insurrection as a
Speaker 2: matter of law, and we'll talk about that in a second.
Speaker 3: But I don't think the court will rule that.
Speaker 2: Why because I don't think Kagan or Soda Mayor or
Speaker 2: Kotanji Brown Jackson would rule there was not an insurrection.
Speaker 2: So if it's going to be unanimous, they're going to
Speaker 2: have to find a way to resolve it that is narrow,
Speaker 2: but that reverses it and brings everyone to go. And
Speaker 2: so here's the basis. I think they will resolve it.
Speaker 2: I think they will resolve whether or not there was
Speaker 2: an insurrection. I'm willing to bet right now there will
Speaker 2: be a sentence in the opinion that says, we express
Speaker 2: no opinion on whether or not an insurrection occurred on
Speaker 2: January sixth.
Speaker 1: So they're gonna say, that's not what we're here to do,
Speaker 1: that's not what we're deciding.
Speaker 4: We're not part of that debate.
Speaker 2: I think what they will say instead is, however, the
Speaker 2: determination of that matter cannot be made without evidence, without
Speaker 2: due process, without a judicial proceeding, and in particular the
Speaker 2: ground that I think the court will go to. So
Speaker 2: there's a federal statute. So here's what eighteen USC. Section
Speaker 2: two three eight three says. It's entitled rebellion or insurrection.
Speaker 2: Whoever insights, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
Speaker 2: rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States
Speaker 2: or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort there too,
Speaker 2: shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
Speaker 2: than ten years, or both, and shall be incapable of
Speaker 2: holding any office under the United States. Now notice the
Speaker 2: penalty and capable of holding any office. This is a
Speaker 2: statute that is codifying the Section three of the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 2: and it is insurrection. Now, interestingly enough, Donald Trump, it seems,
Speaker 2: has been indicted all over the place by a bunch
Speaker 2: of very partisan, over zealous prosecutors who hate the man.
Speaker 2: And you know what, he hasn't been indicted for anywhere insurrection.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith, who is javert to Trump as Jean Valjean
Speaker 2: Jack Smith hates Trump and wants to get him no
Speaker 2: matter what, in prison for life senence. And Jack Smith
Speaker 2: is in decent with a very liberal judge. He's got
Speaker 2: a DC jurypool that is ninety four percent Democrat, he's
Speaker 2: got the most favorable environment in the world. And you
Speaker 2: know what he hasn't done in indicted Trump for insurrection.
Speaker 2: And the only reason he.
Speaker 1: Has to say so, the question is why why?
Speaker 2: Because there's no remote evidence that would prove that Trump
Speaker 2: had engaged in insurrection. Donald Trump sent some tweets and
Speaker 2: stood up and gave a speech in which he told.
Speaker 3: People be peaceable, be peaceful.
Speaker 2: There there, you cannot prove as a matter of law
Speaker 2: that telling people to be peaceful is engaged in insurrection.
Speaker 2: So understand, when Democrats go on TV and say it's
Speaker 2: an insurrection. It's an insurrection when when reporters go on
Speaker 2: TV and say that, they mean that as political rhetoric.
Speaker 2: Insurrection is a legal term, and there's a reason no
Speaker 2: one has charged him with it because you couldn't pass
Speaker 2: the laugh test. So what I think the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: would say is, if you want to bar Trump from
Speaker 2: being on the ballot, charge him and convict him with insurrection.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith brings an indictment, they get a conviction, that
Speaker 2: conviction is upheld on appeal.
Speaker 4: Then look, then that's a different argument. Right, he's been
Speaker 4: convicted of it.
Speaker 2: Then it's a slam dunk if Trump were convicted of insurrection,
Speaker 2: if anyone were convicted of insurrection, they would be barred
Speaker 2: from being on the ballot.
Speaker 1: When you look at Jack Smith, and I got to
Speaker 1: go back to this because you talk about these guys
Speaker 1: and all of the different things they've gone after Trump,
Speaker 1: and to remind people that the entire country, not one
Speaker 1: of these over zealous prosecutors has gone after Trump for insurrection.
Speaker 1: Do you think Jack Smith probably sent in room with
Speaker 1: a bunch of Democrats and said, absolutely.
Speaker 4: Is there any way we could get him?
Speaker 1: Is it possible if we were going to try the case,
Speaker 1: how would we try the case? And then every time
Speaker 1: they went back to Donald Trump's own words of him
Speaker 1: saying go peacefully, and the tweets of him saying go peacefully,
Speaker 1: have a peaceful day, and the fact that he also
Speaker 1: said he offered up the National Guard, which Democrats Pelosi
Speaker 1: said no to. So if you're trying to have an insurrection,
Speaker 1: would you try to do that as well?
Speaker 2: And understand looks Section three the Fourteenth Amendment was passed
Speaker 2: in the wake of the Civil War. It was designed
Speaker 2: to stop people who had fought for the Confederacy from
Speaker 2: serving in Congress, from serving an elected office, from serving
Speaker 2: in government. If you were so understand when they were
Speaker 2: writing insurrection, they were thinking about the Civil War now,
Speaker 2: And we could in a minute go into and we
Speaker 2: may even do an entire podcast, a separate podcast on
Speaker 2: some of the judicial precedent on a post civil war.
Speaker 2: But a potential response to what I just said that
Speaker 2: the court would say, if you want to bar Trump
Speaker 2: from the ballot, prosecute him and convict him of insurrection.
Speaker 2: A potential response was well, post Civil War, the Civil
Speaker 2: War officers who were banned, they were not always barre
Speaker 2: prosecuted for insurrection. That's true, but I will say this,
Speaker 2: and it varied, but there was zero dispute that an
Speaker 2: insurrection had occurred. The predicate. You want to know what
Speaker 2: an insurrection is, Well, the Civil War lasted four years
Speaker 2: and six hundred thousand Americans were killed. That's an insurrection. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Like they brought out cannons, they shot and killed each
Speaker 2: other and had a war for four years, and it's
Speaker 2: the bloodiest war in American history. That's what they were
Speaker 2: talking about when they said insurrection, not a riot where
Speaker 2: some individuals committed individual acts of violence for which they
Speaker 2: were prosecuted and are serving jail terms. That is like
Speaker 2: the analogy is to the Civil War, and it's why
Speaker 2: no prosecutor can can bring this case. All right, let
Speaker 2: me walk through some of the arguments that are at play.
Speaker 2: So here's what Trump argues to the Supreme Court in
Speaker 2: his cer petition. First, he argued that the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: took Congress's authority to resolve questions of presidential eligibility, that
Speaker 2: it is a political matter to determine rather than a
Speaker 2: legal question, whether he is eligible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: And actually in making this argument, he mentions President Obama
Speaker 2: and disputes about whether he was eligible to be president.
Speaker 2: He mentions Senator McCain when he ran for president, disputes
Speaker 2: about whether he was eligible, and he mentions me, actually,
Speaker 2: and there were disputes. There were challenges when I was
Speaker 2: running for president. There were legal challenges that I was
Speaker 2: not a natural born citizen. I was, in fact a
Speaker 2: natural born citizen, because what the Constitution requires is that
Speaker 2: you mean natural born. I was a US citizen even
Speaker 2: though I was born in Canada. My mother was a
Speaker 2: US citizen at the time of my birth, and so
Speaker 2: I was a citizen by birth. The process of being
Speaker 2: born is what made me an American citizen. I was
Speaker 2: never naturalized. But there were a bunch of lawsuits that
Speaker 2: were five against me when I ran. We defeated them all,
Speaker 2: and the courts threw them out, and we defeated them all.
Speaker 2: And what Trump said is, look, if there's a dispute,
Speaker 2: that's ultimately a question for Congress to decide, not the court.
Speaker 2: So that's argument number one. That's a real argument. A
Speaker 2: second argument is that Section three does not reply to
Speaker 2: the office of the president. This is a real argument,
Speaker 2: but I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court agrees with
Speaker 2: this one. But let me give you what his basis is.
Speaker 2: Trump argues it based on three different grounds that if
Speaker 2: you look at the phrase officer of the United States,
Speaker 2: it appears in three constitutional provisions other than Section three
Speaker 2: the fourteenth Amendment. It appears in the appointments clause, which
Speaker 2: requires the President to appoint ambassador's, public ministers and consuls,
Speaker 2: justices of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of.
Speaker 3: The United States.
Speaker 2: And he points out, well, the president obviously can't appoint himself,
Speaker 2: so officers are something different than the president. Likewise, the
Speaker 2: commission's clause requires the President to commission all the officers
Speaker 2: of the United States. Again, the president doesn't commission himself.
Speaker 2: So the argument is officers of the United States are
Speaker 2: different from the president, which is a constitutional creation. And
Speaker 2: then also the impeachment clause, the clause that verdict started with.
Speaker 2: The impeachment clause says, quote, the President, vice President, and
Speaker 2: all civil officers of the United States shall be removed
Speaker 2: from office on impeachment for and conviction of treeson bribery,
Speaker 2: other high crimes and misdemeanors, and so His argument is
Speaker 2: if the president was an officer of the United States,
Speaker 2: there would be no need to specify the president, vice president,
Speaker 2: and all civil officers. So that's the argument. There's a
Speaker 2: textual matter. It's not a crazy argument, but I would
Speaker 2: be surprised if that persuades the court. The third argument
Speaker 2: he makes is that as president, he took a different
Speaker 2: oath than officers of the United States, and that demonstrates
Speaker 2: he's not an officer. In particular, Section three bars from
Speaker 2: office those who have taken an oath to quote support
Speaker 2: the Constitution. And the president's oath of office is specified
Speaker 2: in the text of the Constitution and it is not,
Speaker 2: in fact an oath to support the Constitution. It is
Speaker 2: an oath to quote, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Speaker 2: I'm not terribly persuaded by that argument. It is technically
Speaker 2: right that the word support is not there, but.
Speaker 1: That would be one of the weaker arguments that they
Speaker 1: would be making of their options.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would be surprised if the court grounded it
Speaker 2: on supports different from preserve, protect, and defend.
Speaker 1: By the way, when you go in there, as you're
Speaker 1: laying out these arguments from his team in the oral arguments.
Speaker 1: Would you make all of these or do you choose
Speaker 1: the one you want to make that you think is
Speaker 1: the one that they're willing to probably side with the most.
Speaker 1: Do you pick your best or do you make all
Speaker 1: of these saying here are the reasons why we think
Speaker 1: this is wrong, and these are the different options.
Speaker 4: How does that work in the oral arguments?
Speaker 2: So it varies strategically. Typically, the way people will do
Speaker 2: it is they will make they'll make all the arguments
Speaker 2: they have reasonably available to them in the briefs.
Speaker 3: The briefs are written documents.
Speaker 2: They are typically in the US Supreme Court emerits brief
Speaker 2: is tip typically fifty pages long, and it's a booklet.
Speaker 2: It's a booklet that is oh about three fourths the
Speaker 2: size of a sheet of notebook paper. And so it's
Speaker 2: a bound little booklet fifty pages long. And in your
Speaker 2: written briefs, I would expect them to make all of
Speaker 2: these arguments in oral argument, A good oral advocate is
Speaker 2: going to prioritize it.
Speaker 4: Is that the same for good on the spring where
Speaker 4: it works?
Speaker 1: Those books that you're talking about, is that the same
Speaker 1: book that you have for every justice?
Speaker 4: Or can you taper them?
Speaker 3: None of different you file.
Speaker 2: Each side files uh the petitioner will file an opening
Speaker 2: brief that is fifty pages, the respondent will file a
Speaker 2: response brief that is fifty pages, and then the petitioner
Speaker 2: gets to file a reply. So there'll be three briefs
Speaker 2: filed by the parties, two by the petitioner, one by
Speaker 2: the respondent, and then amiki amik is Latin for amicus
Speaker 2: kurei which friend of the court. And there will be
Speaker 2: other parties that are a mek file briefs urging the
Speaker 2: court to do something.
Speaker 3: But an oral argument.
Speaker 2: A good oral advocate will prioritize the best arguments. And
Speaker 2: one of the things what really differentiates the best oral
Speaker 2: advocates from ones that are merely okay are their ability
Speaker 2: to read the court and pivot. So what I argued
Speaker 2: nine cases at the court, what I very much tried
Speaker 2: to do is watch and read the justices, and if
Speaker 2: there was an argument that I was making, I would
Speaker 2: have thought through what are my best arguments, and so
Speaker 2: I'd come in with a pretty clear idea, all right,
Speaker 2: here's the ground on which I think I can win
Speaker 2: for my client. But in the course of the questioning,
Speaker 2: if I see an opening for a justice whose vote
Speaker 2: I need to get, and maybe I think arguments one
Speaker 2: and two are really good and one justice likes argument three.
Speaker 2: A good oral advocate will pivot based on where the
Speaker 2: justices are and read the justices. And by the way
Speaker 2: I would expect, because I believe John Roberts passionately wants
Speaker 2: this to be unanimous, I would advise Trump's attorney to
Speaker 2: listen to John Roberts very carefully. So before John Roberts
Speaker 2: was Chief Justice, he was a Supreme Court advocate, and
Speaker 2: he was I think the finest Supreme Court advocate of
Speaker 2: his generation.
Speaker 4: When you say advocate, what does that mean?
Speaker 3: Lawyer?
Speaker 1: He argued in front of the Spring Court he was
Speaker 1: if if you wanted to go to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: have a good chance of winning, this is a guy
Speaker 1: you'd want to be making the arguments in your behalf.
Speaker 4: That's your definition of an advocate.
Speaker 3: So John Roberts was.
Speaker 2: He was the Deputy Solicitor General, the principal deputy Solicitor
Speaker 2: General under George Herbert Walker Bush so Bush forty one,
Speaker 2: the first Bush. He was Ken Starr's deputy. So Ken
Speaker 2: was the solicitor General. John Roberts was the deputy Solicitor
Speaker 2: General Principal Deputy. And from there he went to Hogan
Speaker 2: and Hartston, which is a DC law firm, and he
Speaker 2: led their Supreme Court practice. And in Bush versus Gore,
Speaker 2: John was part of our legal team. I recruited John.
Speaker 2: I called John on the phone from Tallahassee and said, John,
Speaker 2: we need you down here, and he flew down and
Speaker 2: joined our legal team. And so Bush versus Gore. I
Speaker 2: litigated it alongside John, worked on the briefs with him.
Speaker 2: Ted Olsen did the oral arguments, but John was part
Speaker 2: of the mooting team that was asking Ted the questions
Speaker 2: and preparing Ted for the arguments. When I was clerking
Speaker 2: for Chief Justice Renquist, my co clerks and I we
Speaker 2: asked the Chief We said, all right, you see lots
Speaker 2: of lawyers, who's the best Supreme Court advocate in the country?
Speaker 2: And Rehnquist laughed and he said, you know, I think
Speaker 2: I could get a majority of my colleagues to say
Speaker 2: John Roberts is the best Supreme Court advocate alive.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 3: And I agree with that.
Speaker 2: I've seen John argue multiple cases, and I think it
Speaker 2: was hands down like he was just when I argued cases.
Speaker 2: I tried to emulate John Roberts' argument style because he
Speaker 2: was so good. And so when I was arguing cases, Now,
Speaker 2: look when I started arguing cases when Renquist was still chief,
Speaker 2: and then I argued a number of cases with Roberts's
Speaker 2: Chief And I'll tell you what I did when I
Speaker 2: was arguing with Roberts's chief is I'm looking at the
Speaker 2: best Supreme Court advocate alive who have to be sitting
Speaker 2: in the center seat. And part of what made him
Speaker 2: so good is he was more skilled than anyone else
Speaker 2: at reading the other justices and the swing justice in particular,
Speaker 2: back when it was Kennedy and O'Connor who were the
Speaker 2: swing justices, John Roberts was excellent at it. So in
Speaker 2: the argument, I would pay very close attention to Chief
Speaker 2: Justice Roberts because if he laid out an argument, he's
Speaker 2: telling you, I think this is the theory that gets
Speaker 2: Kennedy and O'Connor, and so I would pivot very much.
Speaker 2: And my advice for Trump's lawyer is pay really close
Speaker 2: attention to what Roberts is saying, because he's not just
Speaker 2: asking for himself, he's asking on the theory he thinks
Speaker 2: is most likely to unify the.
Speaker 1: Court and get you to that nine zero unanimous decision. Yeah,
Speaker 1: how long are they going to have to argue this?
Speaker 1: I mean when you talk about oral arguments, is it
Speaker 1: is it ours?
Speaker 4: Is it ninety minutes? What are we talking about?
Speaker 2: So normally an argument is an hour. So normally each
Speaker 2: side has thirty minutes. They can extend it. They might
Speaker 2: extend it in this instance. I don't know, but normally
Speaker 2: an argument is an hour. And the bulk of the argument,
Speaker 2: by the way, is questioning from the justices. So you
Speaker 2: get up and the justices are asking you questions, and
Speaker 2: that it's a back and forth. It's not a mile.
Speaker 2: Is a statement there is? There didn't used to be.
Speaker 2: So the old way they did Supreme Court arguments was
Speaker 2: you would start off, you'd stand up and you'd say,
Speaker 2: mister Chief Justice, and may it please the court? And
Speaker 2: every argument begins with that, and you would sometimes get
Speaker 2: less than a sentence into your argument and a justice
Speaker 2: would jump in and pepper you with questions and what
Speaker 2: made it invigoratings? You'd have a question here, a question here,
Speaker 2: question here, and it was just non stop, and you
Speaker 2: had to be quick and fast and anticipate justices who
Speaker 2: disagreed with your position. They're trying to ask you questions
Speaker 2: to expose the weakness of your case, and you had
Speaker 2: to anticipate it. They have post COVID, they regimented it now,
Speaker 2: and I really don't like how they do it now.
Speaker 2: But they now have a period of questioning from each justice,
Speaker 2: and so it's a little it's not the wild face.
Speaker 1: It's almost like Congress, where you have five minutes or
Speaker 1: you have three minutes, and then you go in this order.
Speaker 1: Whereas before it could be a conservative just as to
Speaker 1: your question, followed up by a liberal justice to your question,
Speaker 1: followed up by another justice asking your question.
Speaker 4: It was it was control chaos.
Speaker 3: It was, yes.
Speaker 2: But it is more regimented now. But I would say
Speaker 2: I would expect the chief justices questions to lay out
Speaker 2: in the questions what he think thinks is the best
Speaker 2: theory to bring the court together. All right, let me
Speaker 2: give you the rest of Trump's arguments. Fourth argument he
Speaker 2: makes is that Trump did not participate in an insurrection,
Speaker 2: because an insurrection, as understood at the time of passage
Speaker 2: of the Fourteenth Amendment, means the taking up of arms
Speaker 2: and waging war upon the United States. Now, I think
Speaker 2: that's absolutely correct. I think it's ludicrous to say that
Speaker 2: Trump engaged in an insurrection based on the facts. I
Speaker 2: also do not believe the Supreme Court will conclude that
Speaker 2: because you can't get nine justices for that, and I
Speaker 2: think they will want unanimity, and so they'll say, look,
Speaker 2: my guess is we might get a concurrence from one
Speaker 2: of the more conservative justices saying this clearly was not
Speaker 2: an insurrection, but we might not. And by the way, look,
Speaker 2: I said that there's a sixty to seventy percent chance
Speaker 2: of it being unanimous. That means there's a forty to
Speaker 2: thirty to forty percent chance that the liberal justices just
Speaker 2: hate Trump so much they can't bring themselves to do it.
Speaker 4: And what would that decision look like.
Speaker 1: I mean, would it be one or two that say, hey,
Speaker 1: just for the principle and said nine, we're going to
Speaker 1: go seven to here, or even go sixty three.
Speaker 3: Look, sixty three would be heartbreaking.
Speaker 2: It would do real day in this country to the
Speaker 2: Court and to the country if it just broke on
Speaker 2: partisan lines. If the three liberal justices dissented and the
Speaker 2: six more conservative justices were in the majority, I think
Speaker 2: that would be terrible for the court, and I really
Speaker 2: hope it's not so. The fifth argument that Trump made
Speaker 2: is that the Elector's Clause requires states to appoint presidential
Speaker 2: electures quote, in such matter as the legislature thereof may direct.
Speaker 2: In other words, the courts can't intervene in that. The
Speaker 2: sixth argument is that Section three cannot be used to
Speaker 2: deny a candidate access to the ballot. It can only
Speaker 2: be used instead to prevent someone from holding office. So
Speaker 2: all of those are arguments, as I said, and you
Speaker 2: know it's and it's horse. By the way, the argument
Speaker 2: that I think will will fly is the argument that
Speaker 2: it was not adequately determined that Trump had participated in insurrection,
Speaker 2: not that there wasn't an insurrection, but that the means
Speaker 2: of ascertaining that.
Speaker 1: When that goes back to Jack Smith and what you're
Speaker 1: talking about, he was never charged, much less convicted, and
Speaker 1: it didn't work its way through the court system. And
Speaker 1: so if you believe that Donald Trump in fact was
Speaker 1: a part of an insurrection, then charge him with it,
Speaker 1: get him convicted of it, then you have that different
Speaker 1: argument goes back to what you were saying at the
Speaker 1: very beginning.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I will say look, one of the questions
Speaker 2: that will be front and center litigated is whether Section
Speaker 2: three is self executing. Self executing means a provision of
Speaker 2: the Constitution that has force of law, that doesn't need
Speaker 2: Congress to pass legislation to enforce it, and that will
Speaker 2: be actively disputed. And in the Colorado Supreme Court, one
Speaker 2: of the justices, Justice Carlos Simour, dissented on this point.
Speaker 2: And what he said is that the majority opinion of
Speaker 2: Colorado stripped President Trump of due process of the due
Speaker 2: process of law, and he says Section three didn't specify
Speaker 2: the procedures that have to be followed to be determined
Speaker 2: whether someone is engaged insurrection. All the Democrats is absurd.
Speaker 2: It's insurrection. It's insurrection, but that hasn't been determined as
Speaker 2: a legal matter, and so Justice Samour concluded the Section
Speaker 2: three is not self executing and requires legislation for enforcement.
Speaker 2: And he argued that the lower courts proceeding in Colorado
Speaker 2: lacked basic discovery, lacked the ability to subpoena documents, lacked
Speaker 2: the ability to compel witnesses, lacked any time frame to
Speaker 2: investigate or developed defenses, and lacked the opportunity for a
Speaker 2: fair trial. And he pointed out that in his view,
Speaker 2: Section three cannot be self executing because it doesn't provide
Speaker 2: any procedural guides. For example, Section three the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 2: is completely silent on whether a jury has to be
Speaker 2: impaneled or not. Can a judge decide it? Or does
Speaker 2: it have to be a jury your peer as well?
Speaker 2: Section three doesn't say it. What's the burden of proof?
Speaker 2: Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is clear and convincing evidence?
Speaker 2: Is it simply a preponderance of the evidence. Those are
Speaker 2: very different burdens of proof. Constitution is silence on that.
Speaker 2: What's the standard of review, what's the standard of discovery,
Speaker 2: what's the standard of evidence? Is it a civil determination
Speaker 2: or criminal determination? None of that is there. And so
Speaker 2: what he argues is that Congress could pass legislation to
Speaker 2: adjudicate that.
Speaker 3: I'm not entirely persuaded on that.
Speaker 2: What I would say is Congress has passed legislation when
Speaker 2: it's set up a criminal statute for insurrection, that there
Speaker 2: is a mechanism and it is a criminal trial.
Speaker 4: And charge him and charge him. And so you go
Speaker 4: back to the very beginning of what you said.
Speaker 1: No one has had the kons to charge them because
Speaker 1: they know they would lose.
Speaker 2: You could not prove the case in court, which is
Speaker 2: why instead you have partisan judges or a partisan Secretary
Speaker 2: of State just asserting it because they believe it is
Speaker 2: a political matter. Now, on our next podcast, what I
Speaker 2: want to walk into and go into is there is
Speaker 2: some history and some Supreme Court history on the Fourteenth
Speaker 2: Amendment in section three right after the Civil War and
Speaker 2: Jefferson Davis in particular. So I'm going to give a
Speaker 2: tease for our next podcast. I'm going to walk through
Speaker 2: what happened with Jefferson Davis under the Fourteenth Amendment Section three.
Speaker 2: But let's be clear, Jefferson Davis, by any measure, engaged
Speaker 2: in dramatically different conduct leading the Confederacy in way aging
Speaker 2: war with the United States for four years is very
Speaker 2: different from giving a speech telling people to be peaceful
Speaker 2: and so. But there is complicated precedent post Civil War.
Speaker 2: In the next podcast will dive into that.
Speaker 1: It's going to be very fun. This is why I
Speaker 1: love doing this show. I also will get your political predictions.
Speaker 1: I do want to end with one last thing, just
Speaker 1: so people have that timeline you mentioned earlier. Supreme Court's
Speaker 1: going to hear this. When and when do you think
Speaker 1: we'll have a decision from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: February eighth is when they hear the oral argument. I
Speaker 2: think we will get a decision quickly. I think it's
Speaker 2: possible it could be within days. I think it will
Speaker 2: be at the very latest by March fifth, which is
Speaker 2: when the Colorado primary is. And my guess is it'll
Speaker 2: be a week or two. That's just it'll be as
Speaker 2: quick as they can write the opinions. But I think
Speaker 2: they will feel an urge to move quickly.
Speaker 1: It's going to be incredible, that's phenomenal. We're going to
Speaker 1: cover it all. That's what we do here quickly to
Speaker 1: say this. We're in a new year and you probably
Speaker 1: have a new year's resolution, and if you are a guy,
Speaker 1: I've got a resolution for you that you're gonna love.
Speaker 1: That is getting rid of your weakness and complacency by
Speaker 1: boosting your testosterone levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now, look,
Speaker 1: there is a massive problem with low t historically. Right
Speaker 1: now is off a cliff, not just in this country
Speaker 1: but all over the world. It is an all time low. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: the Patriot to Chalk are helping real American men just
Speaker 1: like you, take back your right to proudly maximize your
Speaker 1: masculinity by boosting, as I said a moment ago, your
Speaker 1: testosterone levels up.
Speaker 4: To twenty percent over ninety days.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack from Chalk and
Speaker 1: I've been doing it for months.
Speaker 4: It works.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna stop taking it because it works. So
Speaker 1: if you've got a new Year's resolution that is, hey,
Speaker 1: I want to feel better, I want to get in
Speaker 1: better shape, well then start with boosting your testostrom levels,
Speaker 1: get rid of that weakness and complacency and get you
Speaker 1: back your strength and vitality. It really helps when it
Speaker 1: comes to working out. My friends, you're going to love it.
Speaker 1: It's manufactured right here in the US of A. Chalk's
Speaker 1: natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you personally on your energy, on
Speaker 1: your focus, on your mood. So check out Chalk choq
Speaker 1: dot com and if you use a promo code Ben,
Speaker 1: You're gonna get thirty five percent off your Chalk subscription
Speaker 1: for life. That's Cchoq dot com. Choq dot com use
Speaker 1: a promo code ben thirty five percent off and your
Speaker 1: Chalk subscription will show up monthly for you, so you
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about running out Choq dot com.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to hit that subscribe follow our auto download button.
Speaker 1: It's a new year, and we thank you guys for
Speaker 1: spending time with us. Make sure you sh this podcast
Speaker 1: with your family and friends. We obviously did this one
Speaker 1: on video for many of you may be listening audio only.
Speaker 1: You can grab it on YouTube. You can grab it
Speaker 1: on x you can grab it on Facebook. We stream
Speaker 1: it on all of those platforms, so you can share
Speaker 1: this on your social media. Happy new Year from all
Speaker 1: of us here, and we'll see you back here in
Speaker 1: a couple of days for basically part two of what's
Speaker 1: gonna unfold here with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: We'll see you then,