All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 20, 2023 - Lionel Nation
57:17
Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump From 2024 Ballot
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today.
And take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
Today we're going to begin with a tutorial.
A tutorial and a series of didactics of which we're going to explore the law.
What is and is not.
The case, what is and is not considered kosher under the law?
The question is, can Donald Trump be kept off the ballot in Colorado or any state that decides, for whatever reason, to declare him as being Unable,
because of having been involved in insurrection, rebellion, etc.
Now immediately, the way most people have been looking, I've been watching a lot of stuff this morning, because people like him or don't like him, they will immediately jump to an answer and try to shape The particular answer around the issue that they want to see ultimately be the case.
So if they say, oh, I want to see Trump on it.
I love Trump.
I think he's a great guy and I'm going to vote for him.
They're going to say, no, you can't.
You can't do that.
It's unconstitutional.
What do you mean?
Well, it just is.
Well, why is that?
Well, we're going to talk about that.
What does the law say?
What do the rules say?
What is this even about?
What is this even remotely about?
That's what we're going to do.
I want to also hear your insight, your questions, your observations.
And I want you to try to be as scholarly as possible.
As scholarly as possible in determining or trying to figure out What exactly needs to be done to address this particular issue?
That's what I want.
Don't let your particular desires overrun, overrule, override the law.
We're going to look at this scene carefully as constitutional scholars.
We're going to forget whether we like him or not.
It doesn't really matter.
The question is, What does the law say?
What will happen?
What does this even mean?
That's what we're going to discuss.
Now, my dear friends, I want to ask you first and foremost to make sure you like this video, subscribe to the channel, hit that little green button or yellow button or whatever that bell is.
What am I saying, green?
I'm a little still, a little shingad, but I'm getting better.
To follow what we're doing in the event of live streams and new videos and that sort of thing.
Because this might be one of the most important issues ever.
And we're going to conduct this like we would in a law class.
In a legal instructional, in a symposium, we're not just going to say things because it's not fair, it's BS, but that's not what I want to hear.
I want to know what the law is.
Because when we get done with this, you are going to be so confused, you're going to be so confused, you'll wish you never discussed this in the first place, but you'll enjoy the journey.
But before we begin, as is the case, Christmas is five days away.
Five days away.
And it is critical.
It is imperative.
It is absolutely necessary for you to recognize that you've got just a couple of days to contact one of the best sources of gifts ever.
And our great sponsor, MyPillow, the great Mike Lindell.
And use promo code Lionel.
And it goes something like this.
Let me tell you about my great friends at MyPillow.com.
MyPillow.com.
And by the way, use promo code Lionel.
Use promo code Lionel and receive a free gift.
No purchase necessary.
And yes, I realize that gifts are free.
It's a tautology.
Get over it.
Sue me!
So what are we talking about?
How about Giza Dream bed sheets?
MyPillow 2.0.
Sheets, slippers, percales, towels, quilts.
Bedspreads, mattresses, mattress covers, mattress toppers, linens, kitchen towels, bathrobes, name it!
Items to luxuriate and relax.
And don't forget, Christmas is just around the corner.
And yes, it makes a great stocking stuffer.
And it's fine for dad or grad.
Made by the greatest company, from the greatest people.
In the greatest country.
Or call 800-645-4965 if you're OG and see how quickly Mike Lindell answers the phone.
800-645-4965.
But don't forget, only use promo code Lionel.
That's MyPillow.com.
Promo code Lionel.
MyPillow.com.
Promo code Lionel.
Okay, my friends.
Now, let us start.
First and foremost, let us start with this particular question.
Let the Colorado Supreme Court keep Donald Trump off of the ballot.
Yes or no, vote.
Vote now.
Right off the bat.
Right off the bat.
One for yes, two for no.
One for yes, two for no.
Can it do it?
Is it possible?
Donald says no.
No.
No.
David says no.
Adubi, no.
Hillbilly, no.
Django, no.
Why no?
Yes, they can do whatever they want.
No, no, no.
Why do you say no?
Whoever says no, before we begin, where is your authority and how did you come up with this answer?
And then we'll get to the specifics.
Where did you get this from?
And please give me more than a sentence.
Don't just say because or whatever.
You've really got to answer.
You just said, no, they cannot.
The Supreme Court in Colorado, 4-3.
Why no?
Not without due process.
Why is this there's no due process?
Supreme Court will overturn.
No crimes were charged against him.
Do you have to have charge?
See?
Let me stop right there.
This is very good.
One of my favorite lines that the Laura Ingram, absolutely unrecognizable.
I haven't seen the Laura Ingram show.
She shows up on my YouTube.
If that eyebrow goes up anymore.
It will be back here somewhere.
Take it easy.
Pump the brakes on that.
Just relax.
Just relax.
Anyway.
She has this line.
How do a bunch of non-elected officials non-elected.
Oh, the Supreme Court is not elected.
You don't mind the Supreme Court In the Dobbs case, did you?
Did you?
Did you mind that case?
No.
Did you mind the Supreme Court in Dobbs?
No.
But they're not elected?
So whenever you don't write the solution or the result, you say, well, they're not elected.
Well, of course.
Of course we know that.
They're the Supreme Court.
They're appointed.
They're nominated.
So the question is, you ask the question, why?
And the question is, You're saying they never...
Donna says, because he wasn't charged nor convicted of.
Why do you have to be charged with it?
Why do you have to be charged with it?
What if there was a corrupt...
A corrupt DA, a corrupt Attorney General, a corrupt whatever.
And they refuse to charge him.
But you, make it Biden.
Make it Joe Biden instead.
You don't have to be charged.
Is it self-executing?
That's the first issue.
Does it automatically take effect or must there be some preliminary finding?
Or you have to find out was?
Was there a...
So what I'm saying is, and I love you, but remember what you're doing.
You're just throwing things out.
You're just throwing things out.
You're just saying things.
Because you don't want this to happen.
You're going to say, well, it's not fair.
There's no due process.
He wasn't charged.
He didn't commit insurrection or sedition or anything else for that matter.
He didn't incite anything.
He wasn't charged with anything.
Fine.
The question you're going to ask is, you should be saying, ask a question, not make a fact.
The question is, must he be adjudicated guilty of something?
Must there be a formal finding of guilt?
Must there be some precedent, some legal determination prior to this?
Ask a question.
Don't just say it.
Because even though it's nice and it's clever, it makes no sense.
You're just saying things.
And that's what laypeople do.
They think they know the law.
And they think they know the Constitution.
They've never read the Constitution.
This is a wonderful document that I have spent my adult life involved with, and I'll be damned if there isn't something where I'm reading and thinking, why do they say it like this?
It's the most wonderful document in the world, but it's completely inconsistent and irregular.
So rule number one, ask a question.
Don't make a statement.
Because you're just saying these things.
You're just, for some reason, because people think that, well, I'm an expert in everything else.
I'm an expert in criminal law, forensic pathology, the Constitution, history, medicine, flus, you know about vitamins, eating.
Religion, God, the Bible, you know everything.
Oh, you've read the Koran, you know everything.
Start off with this presumption and you'll never be wrong.
You don't know anything.
Now what do I always say?
What do I always say?
Let's look at the statute, shall we?
First, where do we go first?
Where do we go first?
Well, let's look at this.
We're going to read this beauty and it's called Section 3. And Section 3 of the...
Follow along with me.
This is the 14th Amendment Section 3. So, read along with me, friends.
You ready for this?
This is good.
I can also blow my nose and I can hide this.
No person shall be a senator Or representative in Congress.
Now remember, every time you come, every time we come up to some little eh, I want you to hit a buzzer or put a check mark or say, wait a minute, this is the way you read a statute.
No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president or hold, listen to this, this gets really sloppy here.
Or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who, now listen to this, 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 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.
That's not going to happen, but they could remove it.
Where do you see the language as being like, wait a minute, wait a minute.
There's something weird here.
Look at this one.
Let's read it again.
No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or electorate or president and vice president or hold any office.
Okay, that's good, right?
Wait a minute.
Or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who, now listen to this, You must have previously taken an oath.
So, did Donald Trump previously take an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States?
And that's considered almost like a derivative How do I say?
There's a Let me get a better one.
Officer of the United States.
I should have this one handy.
Officer of the United States is a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States to whom is designated or delegated some part of the country's sovereign power.
The term Officer of the United States is not a title but a term of classification for a certain type of official.
And it says an officer is a person who holds a position of authority, trust, or command in the federal government.
They are appointed officials who exercise significant authority under the laws of the United States.
The term officer of the United States is a classification term, not a title.
It refers to officials in the executive or judicial branches.
The term officer has been used in other constitutional...
The provision is to refer to appointed officials, not elected ones.
Now let me go back.
Let me go back.
Is Donald Trump, was Donald Trump a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any state legislature, or as an executive?
Or judicial officer of any state?
No!
You dig?
You see what's happening?
You got that one?
You see what's happening?
Now, right off the bat, right off the bat, right off the bat, one could say, it can't be.
This can't be.
Because there's a two-part.
No person can hold office who swore under oath as a member of Congress, blah, blah, blah.
So the answer is it doesn't apply to him.
Could that be?
Better believe it.
Expressio unis est exclusio alterius.
The expression of one is the exclusion of another.
This is statutory construction.
You read it.
It's meaning.
And there's an old, one of the maxims, statutes and derogation of common law must be strictly construed, meaning something that is kind of expression.
This is not common law.
You better read it.
If it says that your truck, Has to be no higher than 14 feet, weigh 3 tons, have no more than 2 axles, and you can only drive at night in this state of, you know, with the lights on.
It means that.
It doesn't mean anything but that.
It means that.
Now, here's another one for you.
Listen to this.
Another argument is that Does this apply?
Look, you know the history of this, right?
This was involved in preventing the Confederacy, the Confederates, Johnny Rubb and all these people from holding office.
That's what this was about.
They didn't want any of these people, but later on what happened was interesting.
There was the Amnesty Act and all this other kind of stuff, but more importantly, I respectfully submit that it is not at all to be construed in any case other than post-Civil War,
that immediate limited framework regarding people who were in the Confederacy.
What am I talking about?
I have no idea.
I'm kidding, of course.
I'm a kidder.
Okay.
Listen to this one.
Let's look at Section 4. Now, why is Section 4?
Well, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment gives you an idea of the context of the 14th Amendment.
And there's something about, it's a wonderful concept called imperimateria.
P-A-R-I-M-A-T-E-R-I-A.
Imperimateria.
You read things together.
Listen to this.
Read along with me.
Now, just wait for a second.
This gets really boring at first.
But there's this other section.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States or, listen to this, any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.
Now what does that mean?
That means this is all about civil war.
It's all about then, not now.
This disqualification was civil war only.
And how do I know this?
Because Section 4 talks about slavery, emancipation.
After the war is over, don't come to us and say, listen, okay, fine, you freed all the slaves.
Now, would you pay me back?
I had these slaves.
You freed them.
I gave you the money.
I went, no!
No!
Wait a minute.
That was chattel.
I owned them.
I had a hundred slaves.
I want to get paid.
They actually looked at it as property.
And they said, no!
Clearly, clearly, this is not about today.
This is civil war.
It's a different story, my friends.
It's a different story.
Now, one more thing.
And this is important.
This is kind of interesting.
And I want to make sure we go through this and make sure we kind of dig this.
Let me go through this again.
This is section three again.
No person shall...
Okay.
Insurrection or rebellion.
All right.
Insurrection or rebellion.
Shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Let me go back again.
Did Donald Trump, was Donald Trump ever a member of, or excuse me, did he ever take an oath as a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state?
No!
President!
But anyway...
Did he engage in insurrection or rebellion?
Well, what is that?
Okay, listen to this.
This is 18 U.S.C., United States Code, 2383.
Rebellion or insurrection?
Eh, this kind of helps, but not really.
Listen to this.
Whoever incites, sets on foot.
I love that.
assists or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fine under the title or in prison not more than 10 years or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." That's the problem.
How does that jibe?
How does 18 U.S.C.?
Connect with the other, with the 14th Amendment.
That's the one I don't know about.
And that's the one that gives me pause.
There's a kind of an inconsistency there.
There's an inconsistency, and I don't know what it is.
Now, that's the first thing.
So the first argument we would have...
Before the court, as we would say, he is not even subject to the statute.
He is not subject.
Just like if you had a client, you could say, Your Honor, my client is 14 years old, not a legal adult.
You must be an adult to do this.
My client is not a resident of the state.
Kind of disqualification.
You can try to disqualify.
Find a way to get him out of the provision.
Try to get him out of it.
I would think that a statute, does a statute override a constitutional provision?
This is interesting.
14th Amendment, I would submit, many people do, for two reasons.
Number one, he was in office.
He was not, he did not take an oath.
First, second of all, Section 4 deals with this notion of emancipation, clearly reflecting that its intention was to address and deal with Civil War stuff.
But that statute, that's the one that's a weird one.
Now, next issue.
Next issue.
Is this self-executing?
What do I mean?
Do you say, well, he did it.
What?
He did it.
He did what?
He is obviously guilty of insurrection.
Wait a minute.
Who said that?
We said that.
It's obvious.
What do you mean it's obvious?
It's obvious he...
No.
No.
It's not obvious he did that.
Is this...
Don't you have to have a...
Some type of a...
A kind of an ancillary derivative finding of fact to determine whether he was even, you know, sometimes you have to have little, like mini-issue tribunals, you know.
When people are charged with crimes, you must, for example, Was this person under the age of 18?
Was this person pregnant at the time of the offense?
Was this person intoxicated?
You have to have these, you find these out first, then you go to the final guilty, not guilty, whatever.
You don't say, well, it's obvious.
No, it's not obvious.
What do you mean it's obvious?
Well, so where is the, and somebody brought up before, due process.
Where is the due process?
Due process.
Remember what process means.
Process means procedure.
The procedure that is due.
And in law, when you hear due process, it means two things.
Notice an opportunity to be heard.
Meaning, you've got to be told.
You've got to be told that you have...
Classic case.
How many of you have ever found out, hey, my license is suspended?
That's not good, because in some states, it's a criminal offense.
You're pulled over, and they hit you in the pokey.
That sounded weird.
So, where was my notice?
I didn't know I was...
You've got to tell me.
You've got to let me know.
That's notice.
And second of all, I have to have the opportunity to be heard.
I have to be able to go before a judge and say, no, my license is not...
Suspended it.
I paid the pick, whatever it was.
So in Trump's case, he's not charged with anything.
He's up there saying, we're going to fight!
Does that mean incite?
By the way, let's go back again.
Look at what this is.
This is very interesting.
We're going to do this.
Remember, I always want you to know, read the statute.
Let's go back to section 3 again.
Okay, right.
You can't see my cursor here.
I don't have that fancy schmancy highlighter.
Okay, see right here?
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.
Now, my reading of this is very simply this.
People are saying he incited them.
He incited them.
There's no such thing.
No, no, no, no, no.
They said engaged in, not incite them.
And people just make, they kind of, there's a fellow who has a podcast or has a YouTube channel called Legal Eagle or something like that.
And Mr. Legal Eagle, for whatever reason, he kept saying, he kept using the word sedition.
Now, where'd that come from?
This is a YouTube channel called Legal Eagle.
Don't mention the sedition.
Now, before we continue, by the way, are you digging this?
I hope you're digging this, because I love this stuff.
I love this stuff.
Before we get there, let me say for a minute, always read the statute.
Always read the thing they claim.
You violate it.
Whatever it is.
Whatever it is.
You don't know how many times have we talked about trans athletes and does the trans athlete Where is the statute?
What are we reading?
Where is the regulation?
Tell me what it says.
I don't even know.
Does it mention it?
I mean, I didn't even mention it.
I told you one time, there was a statute.
It was a stupid case.
I was supposed to plead out some guy.
It was a brand new lawyer.
Some lawyer hired me.
His daughter was kind of crazy.
We have a thing in Tampa called Gasparilla.
Anyway, she...
Threw a bottle or something and broke and she's crazy and she charges some fees.
I read the statute.
It was a city code.
Nobody ever looked at city codes.
They didn't even know where to go.
This was before, you know, online anything.
You had to go to a book.
You had to go to the law library and find a city code.
I looked it up and it said, so help me God, it is unlawful to throw broken glass.
So I went before the judge.
He goes, are you here for plea?
I said, nope, set it for trial.
Set it for trial?
This is a municipal...
And the judge, because I knew her, he said, why are we going to trial?
I said, read the statute.
Nobody ever read it.
And in that statute, it said, don't ask me why, to throw broken glass.
I said, the glass wasn't broken.
When she threw it, it was broken after it hit the ground.
You think that's silly?
God dismissed.
I'll tell you, one more case.
After Tampa had its first I think first Super Bowl, I think, I think, I don't know.
All these cases were charged with a lot of drunks at the stadium.
They were charged with trespassing.
Right?
Now, in the state of Florida, you could trespass and burglarize three different things.
A dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance.
A conveyance is a car, train, something that moves.
A dwelling, I don't think a stadium is a dwelling, or a structure.
Do you think Tampa Stadium is a structure?
Do you think?
MetLife Stadium is a structure under the statutes of the state of Florida.
Is Yankee Stadium a structure?
No.
A structure is a building, permanent or impermanent, that has a roof on it.
All these cases...
So when I point this out to you, I'm not trying to be deliberately priggish.
I'm not trying to be cutesy about it.
There's nothing cute about it.
You charge me with this statute, you must mean that statute.
You must mean every word of that.
That's why I believe you're charging me with that.
Okay?
So let's go back again.
We as citizens use things, use terms.
What are your favorites?
Sedition, treason, rebellion, insurrection, seditious conspiracy, That's about it, right?
You come up with rebellion, revolution, throw that one in there too.
We have these words.
We kind of understand it.
Many times, you wonderful, great people that I love with all my heart, and that's for you, you've come up with things like treason.
Treason is like, no, that's...
No, not really.
But you have this idea, and it's understandable.
It's this sense of violation on your part.
You say, this is wrong!
It's treasonous!
He's a traitor!
Now, for the anti-Trump people, They look at this as being as Trump was responsible.
Now here's what I would suggest.
If we were to have an actual hearing before this thing starts, a determination before anything else, I would have the courts recognize the fact that Donald Trump Did nothing more than encourage the participants to speak their mind.
He said repeatedly, repeatedly, no violence.
Nancy Pelosi was asked or told, and she refused to quell this.
In essence, she was a participatory aspect of this because that's her jurisdiction.
She could have had police or whatever.
Either way.
He never said, do any of this stuff.
He never aided.
By the way, this is the accomplished statute.
Aid, abet, counsel, procure, hire, encourage.
Anything.
Whether it's insurrection, treason, rebellion, or whatever these other words are.
He never did that.
He never did that.
He might have been sloppy.
He might have been not on point.
He might have been kind of negligent in his misuse of words.
He might have been a little bit...
Should have looked after, perhaps, you know, Mike Pence.
Mike Pence was scared.
Excuse me.
And I'm not going to mock people.
Oh, Sandy Cortez says she was petrified.
She wasn't even there.
She was that petrified.
Didn't even have to be there.
Telepathically, she felt the fear without the necessity of actually being there.
He didn't do any of that stuff.
Nothing.
He was not involved in an insurrection.
Now, let me ask you this question.
New issue.
Let's go a step further.
If we want to take these expanded definitions of rebellion and insurrection and treason and all those other kinds of sedition, if we're going to do that, then let's also look at The Biden administration, who aided,
abetted, counseled, encouraged the George Floyd riots, the BLM riots, the Antifa riots.
When you have people up to and including CNN and the statist media, Along with Democrats, say, this is wonderful.
This is civic.
Cops are...
They were going to incinerate these cops inside a patrol car with a Molotov cocktail.
Then let's apply it to Joe Biden.
I'm game.
You want to bring Trump down?
Good.
Now, this is kind of moot because...
Joe Biden is not going to run again, so it doesn't really matter.
But still, still.
And you're right, let me stop for a second and say, America's sweetheart, Liz Solak speaks for us.
I need 500 likes, my friend.
I need 500 likes.
We've got to show people that what we're doing is different than anything else.
We're providing rational, cogent, authoritative, Socratic method, legally focused, not just gibberish about, he's great.
I want to be right.
Not because I like Trump, I don't like Trump.
And by the way, whether it matters, look, other states have ruled on this and said no.
They tried to bounce Marjorie Taylor Greene for the same reason they said no.
Even though he's not going to win Colorado no matter what, does it matter?
It doesn't matter.
The question is, did he violate Section 3, or does he fall under the rubric, the purview of Section 3?
That's what I'm talking about.
That's it.
Not anything else.
I don't care about any other particular reason for that.
Now my friend, stand by for one second, because as I've told you, we are always so, so, so grateful.
Grateful to our wonderful sponsors.
And, as you know, near and dear to my heart, Absolutely, positively critical is a notion of food security.
There was a time years ago when you were a prepper.
You were crazy.
You've got stored food.
You're storing gold?
Costco sold $100 million worth of gold just got Costco.
You know, you've got a generator in your house?
What are you, crazy?
What are you, with the Black Hawk helicopters?
Prepare with Lionel.com.
Listen to what this is.
This could save your life.
Listen carefully.
They can't handle the truth, but you can.
The truth is the clowns running this joint live for chaos.
And many of our problems could be solved overnight, but they let them be.
Destruction fuels them.
If you can handle that truth...
You need to visit my website, preparewithlionel.com.
Preparewithlionel.com.
You'll get $60 off a much-needed four-week emergency food kit from MyPatriotSupply.
The country's largest preparedness company, MyPatriotSupply, is your fighting chance at survival.
Sealed inside rugged packaging, these delicious meals last up to 25 years and provide over 2,000 calories a day.
Think about that.
Eat right in emergencies with this four-week food kit from MyPatriotSupplies.
At this low price, you can get one for everyone in your family.
Visit PrepareWithLionel.com.
Write this down.
Committed to memory.
PrepareWithLionel.com.
Order by 3 p.m. for free same-day shipping.
Prepare right now at PrepareWithLionel.com.
One more time.
PrepareWithLionel.com before total chaos ensues.
Now, let me throw something at you as well.
There's a lot of good people, a lot of lawyers, law professors, esteemed and otherwise, who will say to you that Donald Trump absolutely, positively is guilty of this offense.
100%.
They will swear.
That they're merely looking at the law, the same laws I'm looking at, and they will swear they have no grudge, but that they're right, I'm wrong, we're wrong.
And that's the way it works.
That's the way you always have two sides to, you know, who claim, you know.
Let me go back to one more other little thing, which I think they're missing.
This is where Nino Scalia would come in.
Looking at an originalist point of view, a textualist point of view, what did they mean when they wrote this?
What did they mean?
What were they talking about?
What were they talking about?
What?
What was the context of this?
And it was, no matter how you look at it, Civil War.
We were in Reconstruction times.
They had to do something to deal with these people.
The Fuhrer, how can you have Jefferson Davis all of a sudden say, yeah, I'm going to run for Congress.
What?
You traitor!
Later on, there was an amnesty law which kind of Made a lot of this unnecessary.
You know what I mean?
It's like the 13th Amendment basically removed the Fugitive Slave Clause provision.
It kind of made it move to remove it.
But the thing is that you have to look and see, well, how does this work?
How do these things work?
What were the circumstances then?
Give an example.
We do not know, under the laws, whether the Supreme Court would grant you a constitutional right to refuse vaccines based upon religious or health reasons.
And there's a case called Jacobson.
Versus Massachusetts.
1905.
And it didn't deal with the issue of it.
It dealt with whether you could be fined for not having the vaccine but not whether there was an actual right to refuse it.
That makes any sense to you.
So we look at that case and say, that doesn't really help us.
You can help a little bit, but you have to extrapolate, and there's no way of telling the difference between paying a fine and having the right to review something.
So a lot of this stuff has never...
This happened once.
I think they used this once during World War I, I think, maybe.
And then I think there was recently, there was one, somebody, January 6th, or something like that.
Now, In my personal opinion, I do not believe that there is that under any color, any statute, and by the way,
seditious conspiracy is the worst because it basically deals with the notion of you interfering, preventing the operation or the completion or the procedure.
Of some law, some legal law where you're involving yourself in and in.
That's a different story.
That's a very, very, very difficult thing to deal with.
This idea of trying to do something.
Some people certainly We're there to interrupt, prevent, derail, obfuscate, whatever you want to call it, the certification of the vote, whatever you want to call it, and they got by the eyepatch and whoever these people were, these Proud Boys or whatever.
That was a whole different group of people.
And some of them really wanted to do that.
And they might, under the statute, be guilty of that because that's precisely what this was about.
But most people, no.
Most people were there.
They were upset.
They wanted to stop the steal.
And when I say stop the steal, What does that mean?
If I have a sign that says throw the bums out of Congress, what does that mean?
Stop Biden.
What does that mean?
What?
Now, we have a case, Brandenburg, against Ohio.
I think it's 1999.
I'm not sure.
No, Brandenburg, 69. Brandenburg is the case.
Brandenburg.
This is the case.
Yeah, it is...
Oh, 69. By the way, what's the square root of 69?
Eat something.
Anyway, Brandenburg, and it basically dealt with, this was a Ku Klux Klan thing, it said the government cannot punish speech that advocates illegal conduct.
Unless it is likely to incite imminent, lawless action.
To incite.
It made it very, very difficult to prove inciting.
So if Trump is saying, I'm with you, they were there anyway.
They were going to do Whatever they were going to do.
And if he says, you know, vote your conscience!
Carry on!
I'm with you!
Do the right...
Is he inciting anything?
They're doing it anyway.
What is he doing?
What did Trump do?
What is Trump doing?
What did he really do?
By the way, I love the likes.
I need 500.
Thank you, my friends.
Thank you.
This is a very, very positive moment.
What did Trump do?
What did he do?
And if you've got to ask, you don't have incitement.
Here's one for you.
I want you to go into that courthouse, break down that dog, pull him out of that jail, and string him up.
That's a lynch mob, and that is incitement.
I want you to do it now!
You're going to go in there now.
Alright everybody, I want you to storm the Capitol.
I want you to find Mike Pence.
I don't want you to get that bastard out and make him and you hold him hostage until I get there and demand, hold him, grab him and make scared of him.
And people will do that.
Trump didn't say that.
What did he incite?
They were already there.
They were going crazy.
They had this thing planned.
He didn't do that.
What is he supposed to do?
What is he supposed to do?
If Joe Biden did nothing to stop the BLM riots, if he did nothing to stop the George Floyd riots, the Antifa riots, is he held responsible?
I would say yes.
Under this theory, absolutely.
So here's the thing.
The president, if anything, was guilty of being naive.
He's guilty of being naive.
He is somebody who is not necessarily the most...
What am I trying to say?
He wasn't the wisest.
You know, in acting like this, he absolutely positively, on second thought, I don't think he thought for a moment that what he was doing could be construed as countenancing or encouraging or aiding and abetting rioting.
No way.
No way.
He can say whatever you want about Trump, but no way.
No.
He might be naive.
He might be whatever it is.
It could be.
But isn't this something that they want to disqualify a man from running for office?
And who's going to decide this?
A clerk?
Secretary of State?
Who says, yep.
I think that's insurrection.
Meanwhile, Biden is walking around drooling.
And nobody's even close to that.
Absolutely the most incredible thing I've ever seen in my life.
The level of inequity, inequality, injustice, say what you want, it blows my mind.
So my friends, I thank you for this.
Please, I get a little, well, a lot more detailed.
In my private channel, which you are invited to join.
I want to thank you for your focus.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you for your commitment to truth.
And I hope this teaches you a little bit about how we can take the allegations that are presented and look at them slowly.
Look at them.
Break them down.
And ask yourself the question, what is it that he actually did?
And don't assume.
Then you know, well, treason and, you know, sedition.
No.
No, because a lot of these words are not defined anywhere.
I don't know what, rebellion, to rebel.
What does that mean, to rebel?
To just protest?
Is that rebelling?
Is that rebellion?
I don't know.
They are not provided for, many times, in statues.
So these are words that really mean something.
All right, my friends.
Thank you so much for your time and attention.
You are superb.
We will see you tonight at 7 p.m.
I am feeling so much better, but still shingad like you cannot believe.
I love you.
God bless America.
We will see you then.
Don't forget, I've got some videos coming up.
Pay attention to this.
And don't forget, the monkey's dead.
The show's over.
Sue ya.
▲
Export Selection