Legal AF by MeidasTouch - BREAKING: Trump DISQUALIFIED by Colorado Supreme Court from Election

Episode Date: December 19, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the breaking news from the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying Donald Trump from the presidency due to his violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Folks, Ben Myself is Karen Freeman. I'm Knifelo here with a big breaking news alert. The Colorado Supreme Court by a four to three vote has held that former president Donald Trump is disqualified from holding future office. And therefore, Trump cannot be on the presidential ballot in Colorado based on the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualification clause. However, the ruling is temporarily stayed until January

4th, and I believe this will give some time to Donald Trump and his legal team to try to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court. More on that a little bit later in this video. But let's go to this bomb shell order that a lot of people did not believe that the Colorado Supreme Court, even if the criteria under 14th Amendment Section 3 was met that they would actually vote to disqualify Donald Trump and rule that way, indeed, in a 4-3 decision they did. So here's how I want to break this down for everybody. I want to spend a few minutes going through the decision and reading you the highlights.

I just went through the 133 page order with Karen Friedman Agnifalo. And then Karen, then I'm gonna toss it to you to get your analysis, former top district attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to have your view on this is incredible. So let's go through it, folks. The first page of this order, don't worry,

I'm not gonna go through every page. We're gonna go through just the highlights here The first page of this order, don't worry, I'm not going to go through every page. We're going to go through just the highlights here. But this is a big one where it says, in this appeal from a district court proceeding, meaning a state court district court proceeding under the Colorado election code, the Colorado Supreme Court considers whether former President Donald Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024, a majority of the court holds that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings and there they're talking about an appeal that Donald Trump will almost certainly take to the United States Supreme Court. Now, there were a few fundamental issues that had to be resolved. First, whether Colorado's election legislation, the election code, made this a judicable issue before the Colorado courts

here the Colorado Supreme Court said yes. Once the Colorado Supreme Court said this is something that can be adjudicated in the state they went on to the 14th Amendment section three analysis and they stated what these 14th Amendment section three states and I'll just read it to you very quickly. Section three provides no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or a elector of president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or

as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such disability. Now the lower court, the district court judge, the state court judge found yes, Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, but he was not an officer of the United States. So that issue went on to appeal. The petitioners seeking to remove Donald Trump says he engaged an insurrection and he is an officer of the United States.

Donald Trump's lawyers argued he did not engage in insurrection. He's not an officer of the United States and he never took in oath to support the United States Constitution claiming that the oath Trump took a somehow a different oath. That was the issue to be resolved by the Colorado Supreme Court. And the Colorado Supreme Court looked at this and said, and this is what they said on page eight and page nine, they said, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions

that the law mandates we reach. We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory and that this case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the Electors Challenge under the election code, the secretary would be required to include Donald Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot. Therefore to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court. We stay all ruling until January 4th, 2024, the day before the Secretaries deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot. If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the state expires on January 4th, 2024, then the state shall remain in place and the secretary will continue to be required

to include Trump's name on the 2024 primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. And then if you go to paragraph 5 still on page 8, the sum of all of these parts, the sum of the analysis here is that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office of the president under section 3. And because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the primary ballot. The Supreme Court goes through the procedural history of the case on section on page 49, the Colorado Supreme Court finds that the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment section 3 is self-enforcing,

the disqualification provision of section 3 attaches without congressional action. On page 70, the Colorado Supreme Court finds that the presidency is an office under the United States. In other words, they reversed the lower court ruling finding that Trump was not an officer of the United States or the presidency is not an officer of the United States. And here the Colorado Supreme Court looked at the text of the 14th Amendment Section 3, where it talks about officers, they view that as a catch-all to include the president and vice president. They also go through the history of the Reconstruction Statute, that is the 14th Amendment section three, turning to page 96. There is then a finding by the Colorado Supreme Court

that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. They talk about all of his conduct, his social media posts, his speech, his cooperation with terrorist groups, like the proud boys and the three percenters and all of the insurrectionist groups and Donald Trump's support of them. They then go on to say that Donald Trump's speech on January 6th, I mentioned the Oathkeepers as well.

Trump's speech on January 6th was not protected by the First Amendment. This is not a protected First Amendment speech to engage in this conspiracy. You can try to overthrow the results of the election. There you have it. Then there were a few dissenting judges. Remember, it was a four to three decision here. The dissenting judges came out with different reasons why they think Trump should not be disqualified all kind of on technical grounds. But I just want to say, wow, wow, wow.

So that is an abbreviated version of the 133 page order that I just read with Karen. So Karen, I want to turn it over to you on the analysis part of this, how big is this? Any surprises here? What do you think happens next? So just with the caveat that this is north of 130 pages, I'm still digesting it. This is where we are with this information. First of all, this is huge. You cannot understate what a massive ruling this is.

There are other states where this is also where they are also trying to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot. And this is the first state, you know, similar lawsuits. I think it's like Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire. They've all been trying to do something similar. This is the first state to say that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office. And if you recall that this comes from ratification of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War,

the 14th Amendment was the Constitution, I'm sorry, it was ratified after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment saying, officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they, quote, engaged in insurrection. The wording is obviously vague. It doesn't explicitly mention the presidency.

And there have been lots of litigation surrounding. What type of finding has to be made? You have to be convicted, for example. It does have to be a court finding that you engaged in an insurrection. Or is it enough just to allege it based on the conduct there. And so there's been a lot of discussion about that as well as does this apply to the president because if you remember that there was a lower court ruling judge, I think

her name is Wallace, Sarah Wallace, I believe was her name, she's the the lower court ruling, Judge, I think her name is Wallace, Sarah Wallace, I believe was her name. She's the the the lower court ruling where she gave a very lengthy ruling where she held that absolutely Trump engaged in an insurrection, but that this doesn't apply to the presidency. And she said that basically number one, courts have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th Amendment without congressional action, and that he engaged in an insurrection, but that it it would apply to, but not the president. And the presidential oath is worded slightly differently from the oath of the office that the other enumerated officers, that the 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to, and that the, and so because the oath is different and because it doesn't specifically list the president, the broad phrase that it does list in section three of the 14th Amendment that says officers

of the United States was not intended to include the presidency. While the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with her findings that they could do this, that President Trump engaged in an insurrection, but not that it applied to the President, saying it was interesting, that they say it does. And look, a lot of legal scholars have come out since Judge Wallace's decision and have ruled, you know, that, or I've said, I should say, in detail that it absolutely does apply to the president, that it doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't apply to the president. And of course, he takes an oath, it might be slightly different, but it's still an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So this is a huge rolling. I mean, there's no way to say that this is anything but one of the bigger rulings so far. And we'll see if that will impact other states to follow suit. There's always, you know, it's always hard to go first. But this is also definitely going to the United States Supreme Court. And either side would have appealed. I would, I'm that adventure to guess either side would have appealed, I would, I'm adventure to guess, either side would appeal to the United States Supreme Court, depending on how this went. So, and because Colorado has the requirement that the ballots all have to be set by, I think, January 5th, right? This is important, and that's why the Colorado Supreme Court stayed it until January 4th to give the parties an opportunity to file

with the Supreme Court and see what they'll do. And I am certain that both sides were ready with their paperwork and their writ of certiorari, which is what it's called when you make an application to the United States Supreme Court and ask them to hear a case. I am certain that they both sides have it ready to go, because this has been fully brief, fully argued,

and they knew that this had to be done by January 5th. And so I'm sure we will see a filing, if not tonight, tomorrow, from Trump, where they will ask them to review it, to expedite it. And the fact that this was a four to three ruling and there's dissents, I think almost certainly guarantees that Supreme Court will take the case because they weren't in agreement, right?

This is a seven court decision, seven judge decision, and the full court wasn't fully in agreement. They probably take it anyway. But whenever there's a split or a descent that really opens the door for the Supreme Court to take the case and to rule and see what they decide, absolutely fascinating that the Supreme Court has done, that the Colorado Supreme Court has done this. And I think we need to stay tuned, right? And see if he actually is on the ballot

or not in Colorado and these other states. So Ben. Well, Karen, I think that one of the things here as well is this forces the hand of the United States Supreme Court in a different way. I think they'd probably be less likely to grant a surgery or a re- if Donald Trump remained on the ballot and they could have just exercised a doctrine called judicial abstention. But right now it's kind of forced in a different way and it poses a major constitutional question.

So for those who are kind of curious about, wait, this is the Colorado Supreme Court. Why does the United States Supreme Court that have anything to do with it ultimately wear a state ruling, even at the highest court level, can run into conflict with federal law here 14th Amendment section three right the United States Constitution and its interpretation that is where the United States Supreme Court is still supreme it is still where under our supremacy clause the United States Supreme Court is the law of the land on the 14th Amendment Section 3. That's why this will go to the United States Supreme Court. It will go there on an expedited

basis. That's for sure. And again, it will be interesting to see what the United States Supreme Court does there. You go to page 32 of this opinion right here, and it does cite Justice Gorsuch in a case called Hassan. So, recognizing that this case would find its way to the Supreme Court, what was an interesting approach here by the Colorado Supreme Court is citing one of the judges who may be someone who would otherwise, someone who was appointed by Donald Trump and who a 14th Amendment Section 3 challenge may not necessarily be viewed in a favorable light. But this is going to the Supreme Court. This is big news, folks.

And Karen, myself, Michael Popok, our team here at Legal AF will keep you up to date. 133 pages, we digested it very quickly. There's a lot for us to read and reread these decisions, but wanted to get you the news quickly, get you the analysis, get you the facts directly from that opinion, put in the comments what you think is going to happen next. Press the thumbs up button right now as well. And make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube channel and subscribe to the Legal AF podcast as well. Thank you everybody for watching this. And we'll see you next time with our next legal update.

Ben Myselis, Karen Freeman, Agniflo, Siding Up. Thanks so much for watching. We're only a few subscribers short of two million subs. Please subscribe right now to the Midest Touch YouTube channel for free and help us grow this unapologetically Pro-Democracy Network. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Hey, Midas Mighty! Love this report? Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram.

AtmitisTouch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.