In this installment, Dan and Jordan check in to see how Alex covered the news about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump can't be on the GOP primary ballot. His analysis is as reasoned and insightful as you imagine it would be.
Look, I realized this was going to be, this was what I planned as my bright spot, but I realized I really backed myself into an absolute corner of not being able to talk about it, really.
But that is, last night was the finale of Survivor.
I mean, you would think so, but at the same time, it's not like all these high school students are in the art class because they're huge fans of art, you know?
If you recall taking art class in high school, a lot of people took art class because it wasn't study-based.
The Supreme Court of Colorado in a 4-3 decision without Trump ever being convicted of January 6th or any other garbage.
Just said Trump is off the ballot in the primary, so you can't vote for him to be president.
And they say other states will follow.
We've seen Jack Smith in the politically motivated operations.
We've seen trials in New York without juries against Trump.
This is criminal activity in front of everyone.
This is the oligarchy that's hijacked our country, setting up a totalitarian dictatorship in our face.
The Supreme Court must act quickly to overturn this, but you see the incredible pressure going on against the U.S. Supreme Court right now by the media, the attacks on Clarence Thomas and more.
There's a lot going on here, so I'll try my best to sort through the steps of how we got to the place we are right now with Alex making these panicky pronouncements.
On September 6th of this year, nine Colorado voters filed a suit against the Colorado Secretary of State, asserting that the Secretary did not have the authority to place Trump on the GOP primary ballot because he was ineligible to be president because he participated in an insurrection.
These voters may not have all been Republicans, but they are all eligible to...
vote in the GOP primary, which in Colorado means that they cannot be registered Democrats.
Their semi-open primary system allows people who are registered members of the party and unaffiliated voters the ability to vote in a particular party's primary.
So the bottom line here is that there's no Democrat involved.
The court also found that based on some legal technicalities, based on the interpretation of the language of the 14th Amendment, the presidency wasn't an office that was covered by the prohibitions of the law, which is to say it's not an office under the United States and the precise language that's in the Section 3. Yeah, I read a whole thing.
This got escalated to the Colorado Supreme Court, who agreed with the findings of the lower court that Trump's actions constituted participation and interaction, but disagreed with their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
amendment, ruling that Trump could be removed from the ballot because of his ineligibility This is messy stuff, and it's anyone's guess how this plays out from here.
The language in the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is even pretty clear about that.
They said, quote, On the other hand, if this does get upheld by the Supreme Court...
Shit's gonna get nuts.
I don't think that there's a very strong possibility of this because the current Supreme Court is a bunch of clowns, but there is an outside possibility.
The obsession with states' rights runs deep with the conservative types, and for years it's been this really big no-no to have the federal government meddling in how states choose to run their elections.
It's unlikely, but not impossible, that they would see overturning this ruling as an imposition on the state, but I'm not holding my breath, and they have no problem being rank hypocrites, so I don't...
But even if this does stand, then I could see some voters in other states wanting to try the same thing, but in most cases it's probably too late.
Yeah.
time for all these other states to try to reproduce the result of this Colorado decision, even if they wanted to, and the Supreme Court upholds it.
Right.
unidentified
When I hear Alex trying to present the literal mountain of evidence of Clarence Thomas's corruption as media attacks trying to make him intimidated to overturn this Colorado case, I just can't help but think of how, like, through his whole career, Alex has desperately branded himself as the child.
But, like, I don't know what the alternative is because, you know, obviously I don't think that overthrowing the Supreme Court or, you know...
Engaging in our own insurrection isn't necessarily a productive way to get where we want to end up.
You end up probably running the risk of destroying the system and leaving a power vacuum that the extreme right will end up filling far more effectively and violently than we could ever.
So, I mean, obviously you would want reform, but how do you do it?
The judge himself would have to be like, I guess you guys can impeach me.
It's not going to, it doesn't go well.
The only thing to do would be to pack the court and add a bunch more justices.
And the only way to successfully pull that off would be not to add like two or three, but to add like 20. And then you could finally put enough people in there that it wouldn't be possible, really, to have a 5-4 conservative majority.
It has to be enough people where there's just no point even trying to do that shit.
So this specifically relates to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which doesn't say that a person needs to be convicted of anything to be barred from office.
This section was specifically inspired by a need to keep people who supported the Confederacy out of the government, and the precise issue of whether or not a conviction of anything was required for disqualification is a matter that was studied by the Congressional Research Service.
They had this to say, quote, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.
Reconstruction era prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to So there's precedent that this has happened without a conviction.
What Alex is saying just isn't true.
He's not reflecting the consensus of legal experts.
He's espousing a view that's directly contrary to the actual history of how this section of the amendment has been applied throughout our country.
And just mirroring the rhetoric.
To Alex's other point, that they say it's an insurrection but no one's been convicted, the CRS has an interesting point of slight agreement.
That comes from the fact that, quote, the U.S. Constitution does not define insurrection or rebellion.
Ironically, quote, it's generally up to the president to determine whether a civil disturbance rises to the level of an insurrection.
Obviously, Trump had no interest in calling January 6th an insurrection, so that was never going to happen.
But there's no agreement that a presidential declaration is necessary to establish that something is, in fact, an insurrection.
One thing that's going to be difficult to get around is that the original trial that led to this Colorado Supreme Court decision, part of it was they found, quote, by clear and convincing evidence that the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection.
That goes a long way towards clearing up some of the confusion about terms and definitions and linguistics.
But in terms of the stuff that Alex is choosing to point out, like, those are all non— Well, I mean, it's important to remember that We're talking about the amendment in the context of a different problem it was created to deal with.
All right, we have a huge broadcast with a bunch of special guests and all hell-breaking loose, as I just said, on Jeffrey Epstein on the client list and Trump being taken off the ballot by the Democrat Party Supreme Court justices there.
Total election theft in our faces.
Huge news on the battlefronts in Israel and in Europe.
Ukraine.
It's just...
Massive.
And we're going to do our best to go over all of it today.
Obviously, front and center is going to be Trump being taken off the ballot in Colorado.
And then Crenshaw of Texas supporting it.
Oh, my God, he's horrible.
But he has an eye patch.
People have a thing for veterans.
I love veterans, but not Benedict Arnold's.
I mean, we've got David Goswami saying he's going to withdraw from Colorado ballot.
He said other Republicans should.
To his credit, DeSantis has come out and said the same thing, that he doesn't support what's happening.
Another thing, the fake pledging to withdraw from the Colorado primary if they didn't let Trump back on the ballot is kind of giving up the game a little bit.
He knows damn well he has no chance at even coming in third in the GOP primaries, so him saying he's going to give this up is him threatening to sacrifice nothing for the opportunity to grandstand, which is really what his entire campaign is about to begin with.
This is a prime opportunity for Vivek to further solidify himself with extreme right-wing media figures and stake out his place in that ecosystem.
Further, if he has any actual interest of being in the government, then he's making He has zero chance of winning, but if Trump wins, that dude is all about loyalty.
Yep.
unidentified
Making high-profile, subservient moves like this could fuck around and get Yep.
It is to all of our detriment that the style guides of every major publication have not been updated to include just, like, any time Vivek speaks, uh, jerk-off motion.
Like, Shut up, man.
There's no point in him talking.
And that the newspapers keep like, Vivek says, stop it.
And I wish everybody did this, but we connect it in to the State Department that supposedly oversees elections around the world unless they're overthrowing your government.
They went down last year and set it up where Bolsonaro has been banned for running for president for eight years.
They admit they were behind that.
And they go around to all these other countries and say, oh, you're outlawing people voting for who they want.
You're pulling candidates off the ballot.
I got a bunch of examples around the world of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, other countries, because they're pulling the same communist, totalitarian, fascistic tyranny.
I mean, this is dyed-in-the-wool.
If this was an alcoholic beverage, it's 200-proof tyranny.
So I'm going to wait until Alex gives any of those examples that he has, because I've played that game way too many times.
More often than not, the copious examples of tyranny never materialize, and I end up on a wild goose chase.
That said, he did bring up Bolsonaro, so let's touch on that for a minute.
Alex cannot prove that the U.S. State Department was involved in the decision to bar Bolsonaro from running for office.
He's just asserting that confidently because he knows that tricks most listeners into assuming there's no way he would say something so confidently if he's just making it up.
A few reports back, you know, where it's like the Supreme Court could still, you know, we didn't know as much as we do literally in the past week, you know?
Now that we know what we know, it's like, oh, well, the moment this happened, it's all over.
There was no point in pretending that there's a swing or that there's a different thing.
It's all over, right?
So they won!
Like, just, like, celebrate!
I'm bummed out that people on the right aren't just celebrating after the news about the Supreme Court.
About how the Supreme Court justices literally were like, okay.
Let's act like we're not going to end abortion right away so people don't think that the only reason that we're here is to end abortion, which is like lying, because that's what they did.
So if the Supreme Court is lying to you in order to do unpopular right-wing things, then you won!
Colorado Supreme Court yesterday disqualified Trump from the 2024 ballot.
The legal theories are based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment, which states public officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion may be disqualified from public office, but there was no trial, no jury.
Judges don't get to decide unless you're in North Korea.
There was a trial at the beginning of the case that led to the Colorado Supreme Court decision.
Alex is lying about there not being won because it.
Way easier.
Trump's lawyers could have requested a jury trial in his case in New York, but they didn't.
He may not have gotten one because the statute that he's in violation of is generally handled with a bench trial with a judge and not a jury, but he could have requested one and he very well might have gotten it.
Similarly, Alex could have had as much of a jury trial as he wanted if he had just cooperated with the discovery process of his case.
He and Trump have both landed themselves squarely into the positions they are in now and are desperate to present the mess they've made as evidence of their own persecution.
I'm going to show you the State Department, the Constitution, all of it.
Because we're not like mainstream media here.
We don't just say things and not show it to you.
We neurotically show you everything.
I was on Crowder's show today.
I was putting myself down.
He said, why are you doing that?
You need to stop.
Well, no, no, no, no.
Because I'm a sinner, folks.
I've made big mistakes.
And I was making the point that Madeline Albright is on Iraq that killed 2 million people.
The time she did the interview, it was halfway through it, so she killed a million, half of them children under the age of 10. And she said, yeah, we killed them.
We do it again.
It was a good price to pay.
And I said, I've never killed anybody, and I've got to be banned everywhere.
All this is just bullshit, but it's the declaration of the brand.
This isn't Alex, but it's how Alex wants to be seen, as bona fide, as someone who's neurotically proving the points that he makes with documentation, as someone who's willing to admit when he's wrong.
These are diametrically opposed to the real person and media figure that he is, but if you say it enough times, people are just going to be like, You're bonafide.
That's the level of research and content you're going to get on InfoWars.
Alex defending his assertions by pointing at tweets random people posted.
Alex isn't really right on the timeline of the stuff he's saying here either.
That headline that he reads, quote, U.S. to ease sanctions on Venezuelan oil for free or presidential elections, is from a screenshot in the Son of Haas tweet.
And it wasn't like Maduro just started imprisoning opponents after that point in October.
Amnesty International has documented cases of politically motivated arbitrary detentions going back to at least 2018.
While it is true that Maduro has not necessarily kept up his end of the bargain made back in October, it's not an escalation.
Sure.
the next election sure that's usually an issue there's an important point that just kind of never gets brought up in conversations like this that alex has which is that similar actions can be good or bad depending on circumstances for instance in this case he's presenting two cases where someone is being disqualified from seeking office and it's just taken as established that these two cases are the same thing everyone is so mad when maduro does it but then the globalists turn around to do it here but the reality is that these are not similar situations at all alex might have a point if
unidentified
it was joe biden forcing all the states to disqualify trump but that's not what happened a court making a legal determination about ballot qualification in their state is not the same thing as an authoritarian leader arbitrary arbitrarily disqualifying opponents so they can hold on to power Alex tries to equate the two, because without doing so, there isn't really a point here.
Yeah, you know, that is an interesting thing about the way that the systems are different in that term, you know, is like...
When you think about the Brazilian stuff, the Supreme Court being corrupt there and disqualifying Lula from the ballot and all of that stuff, and the way that that worked out, being so close, if that makes sense.
Like, the system is so close.
The president and the Supreme Court and the guys, they're all hanging out together, doing the thing.
Or in Venezuela, the president.
Hey, guys, just...
Get him out of there.
He's gone.
Be done with that.
Whereas in the United States, it has to be laundered through so many different possible avenues of, like, so many different breakpoints.
And yet, at the same time, there are still plenty of ways, like, through judge shopping, through going through a certain district, through finding out little ways to navigate the system, where you do essentially get...
The same corrupt ruling, if that makes sense, as if you were close, you know?
Not the same, but if you navigate it well, which is the stories that we read now, you know, it's like when the conservative legal activists navigate the system well, it really looks like all they did was walk up to somebody and say, change the law for me, please.
Cambodia isn't really a democracy that I would compare to this country, seeing as their prime minister, Hun Sen, had been in office for 38 years and has now handed off power to his son.
In the last election, political opposition parties were disqualified.
Again, this is the same example with the Venezuela one.
There's an optical similarity between the situations in that someone was disqualified for running from office, but beyond that very shallow surface-level appearance, the situations are not comparable at all.
U.S. expands sanctions on Belarusian regime, marking the three-year anniversary of the fraudulent August 2020 presidential election, where they restricted who could run against them.
Now, this one definitely doesn't make sense, because Alex loves Belarus, and has said that their presidential dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, sounds like him when he gives speeches.
I'm not going to fully back every decision Zelensky has made, but he banned political parties that were tied to Russia, the country that is invading them.
That is not similar to the Colorado ruling at all.
Zimbabwe has been sanctioned by the U.S. over election-related stuff going back to at least 2002.
Their elections are definitely fraught with problems, and Robert Mugabe being in power for 30 years and then being succeeded by an ally of his certainly doesn't help.
More to the point, though, Alex has said on air that the people of Zimbabwe would be better off under apartheid, so I'm not really sure he cares too much about electoral integrity there.
It would be an interesting system if after the Civil War, instead of anything, instead they were like, Jefferson Davis, how about you run legitimately to turn this into the Confederacy?
I don't think that's good.
I don't think you should just be able to run for the president of taking over the country.
And I think that would be a little bit similar to somebody from Russia trying to become the president of Ukraine.
U.S. sanctions Guatemalan officials over undemocratic activity, banning their political opposition.
Heard of that before?
So the State Department, until the last couple years, runs around sanctioning people when they do this, but now they go down and teach them how to do it.
So Alex is lying about the issue with the election in Guatemala in order to make it sound more similar to his current gripe.
In that case, the U.S. was looking at sanctions because Bernardo Arevalo had won the presidency, but the country's attorney general was trying to find ways to stop him from taking office.
Political opposition wasn't banned.
The party currently in power is just trying to do what Trump did after 2020.
So all of Alex's examples don't really relate, but man, it feels like he made his point.
He had his intern print out whatever headlines he could find that related to sanctions and election issues, and then he rattled them off with no analysis whatsoever.
And the point seems to be that up until a few years ago, the State Department would sanction these countries, but now they go teach them how to disqualify their opponents, presumably by example with the Colorado ruling.
That theory would probably hit a bit harder if pretty much all of the headlines Alex is reading off about sanctions for these countries over election issues, they weren't all from the last few months.
These are all current headlines.
The Guatemala situation is still ongoing, and Aravelo isn't set to take office until January 14th.
The Venezuela situation involves sanctions that were eased in October.
The Cambodia article is from July.
This is what it looks like when someone tries to make a low-effort but high-intensity defense of something that he'd rather not get too in-depth about.
It's all just very convoluted and amounts to nothing, but it kind of feels like he's making a point.
If you're listening passively, you don't really know what he's talking about.
I do think that he would have no problem with, like, sovereign countries imposing sanctions on other places in order to enforce, you know, their ideas about global issues.
So that headline about Europe being on the cusp of secret censorship is just a substack post written by Michael Schellenberger, who I have little faith in.
It's also a paid post, so I can't really read it without subscription, but I found a little backdoor version of it.
And it's just a sycophantic rambling about how Elon Musk shouldn't have to be bound by EU regulation and the way he runs Twitter.
So as for Poland, the far-right Law and Justice Party just lost the most recent election.
The newly elected Prime Minister Donald Tusk made it part of his campaign to make changes to the TVP, the state media broadcaster, which had to effectively become an arm of the Law and Justice Party.
Tusk clearly had the backing of the public.
were passed by Parliament.
So it's not like he's going about this like a dictator and making unilateral moves.
Alex shouldn't have a problem with this.
He's talked constantly about how Trump should fire everybody And incidentally, the person Trump put in charge of VOA, Michael Pack, Trump's administration was doing exactly the thing Alex is complaining about being done in Poland, except that they didn't pursue appropriate legal channels.
But that wasn't bad to Alex.
This is because in Poland, the goal is to bring greater neutrality to a channel that's become a far right outlet.
So no matter how it's being done, this is horrible, evil censorship.
Conversely, with Voice of America, Alex thinks that it's dirty, liberal, globalist propaganda.
So attempts to destroy it, even using clearly illegal methods, are a good thing and definitely not censorship.
So it's interesting that Alex is hinging so much of his response here on the fact that the report is long.
It is, but that's because it's detailed in its analysis, and it doesn't take lightly the subject it's covering.
It's not just random shit chimpanzees typed on a page.
They fully justify why they affirm the lower court's determination that Trump engaged in an insurrection.
They justify how the definition of insurrection fits the case, and then they walk through the various acts that Trump took that were essential elements of what happened that day.
For instance, he singled out Mike Pence as someone who could refuse to certify the election, and when Pence didn't follow through, the rioters in the Capitol chanted about hanging him.
The standard that they applied was that to engage in the insurrection meant to act, quote, overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists common unlawful purpose.
One very major point in this direction is that after the violence broke out, instead of taking any action to promote a resolution to the rioting, Trump instead called on senators, quote, urging them to help delay the electoral count, which is what the mob upon President Trump's exhortations was out.
But the fantasy version of January 6th is reality in Alex's world, so trying to argue the point with someone like him is a fool's errand, and it's pointless.
That cement is dried in terms of Alex and his ilk.
So there's an ethics complaint filed that Kentonji Brown Jackson did not file disclosures of some of her husband's income, which came from him consulting on medical malpractice cases.
There's no indication of any wrongdoing on her part in terms of hearing cases, but some folks have said that she should recuse herself if issues that relate to that kind of thing come up.
Alex is greatly exaggerating this because it's not really about Jackson's possible corruption.
This is just a smokescreen to try and excuse Clarence Thomas' very obvious and flagrant abuse of power.
On a very basic level, Clarence Thomas has accepted gifts worth in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from billionaire Harlan Crow, including luxury vacations and half-million-dollar gift to Thomas' wife's tea party group.
That shit's been going on for years, and the gifts were never disclosed.
It also just came out that Thomas was in a ton of debt about 20 years ago and sought to get the salaries for Supreme Court justices raised.
According to the New Republic, quote, within months, Republican billionaires began giving him extravagant gifts.
What?
unidentified
He had previously and privately lamented that if he didn't make more money as a judge, he might have to leave the bench.
Alex should probably be interested in the fact that Thomas and Harlan Crow went to Bohemian Grove together a bunch, but I guess worshipping the devil and carrying out human sacrifice is only a problem when you want it to be.
It's only a problem when the people I don't like are doing it.
That is, like, one of the protections that I think unions should really coalesce around, which is, in situations like this, someone then should be allowed, someone from the crew should be allowed to scream at Alex that they're not mad.
They just thought, well, this is a colorful character.
You can take stuff out of context.
He's done to make Trump look bad.
So they blew me up.
And I was already huge with conservatives and stuff.
2016, a third of the 100,000 people there were wearing my T-shirt.
So you go out there, just T-shirts everywhere.
And the left finally went, and their arrogance kind of deflated, which was a bad thing.
We love them being arrogant and blind at the fact that we're taking the country back peacefully, intellectually, politically, financially, spiritually.
And they're like, we'll say he's Trump's brain.
And it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And I'm not going to, it's not with even me and Roger and Trump, but the main advisors to Trump listen every day and a lot of my analysis and my game plan gets put in there.
It's beautiful.
It's absolutely beautiful.
And of course, you never even hear in the news who his main advisors are.
But the entire status of the right wing, the GOP as a whole, is beholden to ideas that are, like, undistinguishable from everything that's on InfoWars.
I would also suggest that maybe his system isn't working, of sitting in the dark and demanding to feel all the pain so it goes away, because he seems to be talking about things that he's already done that about in the past, and the pain seems to still be there.
Still lingering.
He claims that he's externalized this and all the pain goes away, but it clearly isn't working.
But in the same way that if you repeat a word too much, it suddenly loses meaning.
Like, all of a sudden, after, like, six hours of inspiring pre-the-big-game speeches, it turns into, like, the bees are coming from right behind your butt, and that's where the sky is going to be inside your hair!
I predict that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.
And then once that is done, this gambit, which is largely the brainchild of Norm Eisen and the people at Crewe, will be over.
This will be a failed gambit.
What's next?
Could we have another pandemic?
Most definitely.
Could there be a terrorist attack on American interests on our own soil?
Given how many millions of illegals we have allowed into the country and our inability to track who they are and where they are, that's entirely possible.
But this really is sort of an encapsulation of the way that Alex wanted to talk about the...
The ruling, which is, you know, what's next?
What are the globalists going to do?
And of course, this leads into the conversations about false flags and all this, because on a basic level, Alex understands that this is probably one of the most potent potential triggers of domestic terrorism.
That we've seen in this election season and the surrounding time.
The notion of Trump being barred from a ballot is something that would prompt violence from the extreme right wing.
Even Roger is like, I don't think Colorado is a state that I'm relying on for my calculus of the path to the presidency.
So, like, unless it spreads to all sorts of states that Trump would need to win, which is incredibly unlikely.
It doesn't really have an effect on Trump becoming president, but it has the feeling of limiting Trump's ability to become president, and that will leave people in a state, particularly a lot of the people who are all excited about the Stop the Steal stuff, they feel like they will be left with no legitimate avenue left in order to change the things that they feel need to be changed.
And I don't see a way that that doesn't lead to A very, well, it's not a guarantee of some sort of a bombing or whatever.
I think the odds of that, the danger of that, greatly increases.
And I think Alex understands that.
And I think that part of the discussion of what's going to happen next, what are the globalists going to do next, is that preemptive damage control, creating a narrative in advance, should there be some act of right-wing terrorism, in order to have that there and be like, oh, I said that this was going to happen, it's all fake.
Although I do think another option is that the Supreme Court just is like...
Fuck, the implications of overturning this in terms of our, you know, states' rights positions, our interpretations previously of the Constitution can't allow us to overturn this.
I think that that is a possibility, too.
I think it's slim, but I think it's a possibility.
Like, ultimately, you know, the notion that consequences exist, and they are a function of virtue, is, I think, pretty heavily adopted by the right wing.
When we wake up, we'll look back at everybody's arguments and be like, hey, we could have gotten involved with that, but then we didn't, and now our lives are fine.