All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2023 - Lionel Nation
25:08
14th Amendment False Flag: Pathetic Attempts to Block Trump Will Fail
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
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.
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.
Let's talk about the legal implications, the legal side of this now.
Let's leave the emotion.
And let's specifically look at how the Supreme Court in Colorado ruled in this 4-3 decision disqualifying President Trump from being on the ballot grounded in the 14th Amendment of the United States.
Now, I want to play for you before we bring in our constitutional expert here and legal maven, our brilliant mind here in a second.
But I want to play for you perhaps not a legal maven and not a...
A legal genius.
The Secretary of State of Colorado, Jenna Griswold, she was on CNN.
Watch her smiling ear to ear at this decision and how she lays this out, exactly why President Trump will be thrown off the ballot.
Listen.
What does this really mean for the former president in the state of Colorado tonight?
Well, it's definitely a big case.
The fact of the matter is the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that Donald Trump did engage in insurrection and that his actions have disqualified him from being president.
And I just think the gravity of that in itself is just remarkable.
We've never had a president inside an insurrection and then try to run for the presidency again.
So she says, quote, the fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.
Let's bring in legal expert, constitutional legal expert, media commentator, former prosecutor, Lionel, from the Lionel Nation YouTube channel.
Lionel, great to see you.
Welcome back to Redacted.
Always a thrill to have you here on the show.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
So you heard the Secretary of State saying specifically the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, pointing specifically to the 14th Amendment of the United States.
I think we love to talk about history here on this show.
Most Americans, I don't think, understand that the 14th Amendment put into law in 1868 right after the Civil War.
This was a Civil War amendment.
I mean, it was meant really to keep...
Members of the Confederacy from becoming President of the United States, becoming members of Congress.
It really was put in place to bar those individuals from taking part in the government after the end of the Civil War.
So she says the fact of the matter is he engaged in insurrection.
So can you get to the heart of the legal question here?
What specifically did he do that she is confident that he did?
Well, first, the question is, is this a self-executing statute?
Must there be a prior determination of insurrections?
I will then say, what is insurrection?
You know, it's very common for people in our regular parlance to use the word insurrection, sedition, rebellion, seditious conspiracy, and we use these words, but what does that mean?
Does that mean an uprising against the government?
Does that mean...
An uprising?
We don't know.
But let me be a little arcane just for one second because I find this to be fascinating.
I like to read the statute.
Now, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows.
I'm going to try my best to read through this, but just listen to this.
It says, Under the United States or under any state who,
listen to this, 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, did Donald Trump previously take an oath as a member of Congress?
An officer of the United States, kind of like a subordinate agency member of you, or a member of the state legislature?
The answer is no.
No, I don't remember him serving in the New York state legislature.
I don't remember him becoming an officer of the executive branch.
He was president of the United States.
Now, we can't ask, why did they phrase it like this?
I don't know.
So it's pretty vague.
This is a wonderful...
Document the Constitution.
But if I could tell you the inconsistencies, but let me also tell you, there's another part which is important, because we're going to read this very carefully.
It says, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Now, shall have engaged.
I'm hearing people talking about incitement.
I heard...
There's a YouTube channel, I'm not going to mention the name, but somebody who purports to be a lawyer used the word sedition.
And there's no way to be sedition.
We use these words as, I guess, commonplace, just like we say he's a traitor.
So the bottom line is simply this.
Number one, I would say that under this amendment, it doesn't apply.
To be even more arcane and recondite, section four, Afterwards, talks about different claims that will not be honored by the government.
And one of them is claims for the loss or emancipation of any slave.
So what they're saying is, after we're done with the Civil War and after we have Reconstruction, don't come back and file any claim because now that we've freed your slave, we're not going to pay you back because slavery is void.
The reason why that's important is that there's a concept called in peri materia.
That shows us the tenor, the framework, the idea of what this was dealing with.
It was a post-Civil War, post-Reconstruction.
And by the way, this becomes moot because later on there are these amnesty.
So what we're doing is, this is a Hail Mary.
And despite my brilliant treatise heretofore, there are people who are going to say, no, no, that's not true.
That doesn't apply.
But the bottom line then is, okay, irrespective of this, let's assume that this was not a self-executing statute.
Because How does this work?
Does the Secretary of State say, huh, how many people think it was...
Okay, that's good.
Rebellion.
We don't know.
But let's assume that we had an actual hearing or there was this preliminary determination of whether Donald Trump actually violated anything.
What did he do?
Yeah, that's a great question.
Let's go to that day, right?
Let's go to that day because...
Much of what he did that day has been silenced on social media.
Of course, his video response that afternoon was taken off of Twitter.
He was banned on Twitter.
So his video response where he was telling people to go home, not to engage in violence.
Have your voices heard.
Have your voices heard.
Don't engage in violence.
No violence.
I think he said no violence like, I don't know, three or four times.
So is that an incitement to an insurrection?
Did he engage in insurrection?
Who arranged this first?
He didn't do it.
They did.
And when you say they, who were they?
You had the Proud Boys.
You had the feller with the eye patch.
You had the Valkyrie helmet dude.
You've got all these other people.
You had the pipe bomber.
You had the feds.
You had the FBI.
We now know, right?
And you had innocent schmucks who just happened to live under the delusion that, well, we're going to go and we're going to stand in front of our Capitol, and all of a sudden they were, you know, corralled into some arrest.
Other people also invited in.
Come on in!
Come on in to the Capitol Police waving people through the doorways, etc.
Ashley Babbitt, I don't know what happened to her.
Oops!
Now, out of those, the aforementioned groups, What did he have to even do?
Did he say, alright, everybody meet, you be there.
This was on its own.
This was going to happen.
Now, there were some people, and by the way, one of the worst statutes, if you want to get somebody on something, and this surprises a lot of people, seditious conspiracy.
This is basically something that says, if you, if two or more people conspire to basically interrupt, interfere with, obstruct some Some legal transfer, some legal procedure, namely the certification of votes or whatever it is, that could be construed as seditious conspiracy.
Okay, fine.
He didn't do that.
Now, did he aid or abet or incite?
Let's get more legal.
1969, Supreme Court case, Brandenburg against Ohio, which says basically, not only do you have to say something and to inspire, to encourage, you've got to incite.
You've got to do something that makes the imminent reaction, imminent response evident.
It's not just, hey, listen, you people do what you think is right and yay!
No.
If he says, I want you to go into that Capitol and I want you to find Mike Pence and I want you to drag him out and I want you to...
I mean, that's absurd.
I didn't hear him say that.
I didn't hear him say that.
He never even got close.
I think there was something like, come on, Mike, do the right thing.
You can't get more vague than this.
What this also is, Is the usurpation of the franchise, this is an end around, this is, is this, by the way, another legal issue, is this a political action or is this legal?
Impeachment is political.
It is no ground in law.
You can impeach for anything.
Yeah, it's not a criminal proceeding.
It's not a criminal proceeding.
Not at all.
It's a political proceeding.
High crimes, misdemeanors, whatever, what was it, Gerald Forza, whatever 50% say this, that's purely political.
This is a different story.
Now, remember, Marjorie Taylor Greene, I believe, had that, they had tried it with her, and somebody said, no, that didn't apply.
Some courts have said...
It would not hold or would not substantiate a valid claim.
The Supremes are going to hear this.
Now, with the conservative bloc, they're going to look at this thing, and you have to ask yourself, if you go back to Nino Scalia, the originalists, at the time this was written, at the time this was written, based upon the context of the framework with what they said at the time, That is the only framework because we have, I think this was used once during World War I. I think recently there was a January 6th person.
This is never used.
And by virtue of the fact of the paucity of cases that we have, it was never, nobody even thought of this.
This is a Hail Mary last-ditch effort, which is going to do nothing but just elevate him to almost...
Even greater superstar status.
You know, the martyrdom, every time they try to crush this man, it backfires.
So, he has a variety of legal issues.
I hope he gets to it, and I hope he...
Let me say this politely.
I hope he gets a more sober, dedicated, and...
Formidable legal team to handle this.
People who are not necessarily looking for adulation and publicity.
Right, right, right, right.
The television cameras and all of that, but just focusing on the constitutionality of this and the statute specifically.
So I'll get you out of here on this, Lionel, which is what happens next at the Supreme Court level.
I mean, we've got candidates in Iowa.
We are up against the clock now.
So now it's Christmas holiday.
The Supreme Court in Colorado hands this down.
Now the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the United States, presumably will have to handle this now.
When do you think that's going to happen?
How do you think they will handle this?
And how quickly?
They will put this on...
In fact, it's been delayed until the Supreme Court can deal with it.
I think it's going to be on an accelerated basis, an emergency basis.
But let me tell you, when it comes to the Supreme Court...
You never know what they're going to do.
Who knows?
Just when you think sometimes they obviously have to.
This is a case of absolute monumental importance.
You also have conflict jurisdiction.
You're going to have one court says this, one court says this.
This is the perfect time to really seize the moment.
And every time I've said this in the past, they've disappointed me.
So I don't know.
But I think ultimately...
Based upon the intent of the Constitution, the way this is being done, and for purposes of future iterations of the franchise, they will rule against this attempt on Colorado.
And by the way, people who are doing this are, you can see by the smirk, by the look of delight, it's like, I might be the George Washington of, this is actual insurrection.
What is happening right now?
They're jubilant.
I mean, you saw the Secretary of State.
She's jubilant about it.
She was tweeting about it.
She loves the fact that no man can call for an insurrection and then become President of the United States once again.
Last thing, very quickly.
This is very dangerous.
Now, you've got to think about the other.
If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or somebody were to, if I were to find some, and they may not run again, but let's assume I find some Peace, where Kamala Harris cheered on, let's say, the George Floyd protesters, the BLM protesters, Antifa protesters, and said, yes, show your whatever.
What if another Secretary of State were to view that as somehow inspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring, hiring, a new form of insurrection?
Do you know how dangerous this is?
When Don Lemon years ago said, well, this is another peaceful, I know he's not an official, but when all of those George Floyd riots were going on, people were applauding those.
Why could I not look at that as a form of rebellion, insurrection, treason, sedition, inciting riots by basically tacitly giving the okay?
And Lionel, it wasn't even applause.
President Biden specifically got up and gave a speech where he supported the protests for Black Lives Matter and George Floyd.
And those protests, of course, were burning cities, destroying businesses.
And he specifically said, we need to support the end of systemic racism and these protests and support these protests.
So what...
Americans call to arms.
Yeah, let's go and loot stores.
President Biden's telling us to go and loot stores and support the end of systemic racism.
Whatever that specifically means under those terms.
So, yeah, absolutely he could have done this.
So do you believe then, I guess at the end of the day, when you look at this statute, you look at this decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, does this stand a snowball's chance in hell of sticking?
Yes.
It does.
I'm sorry to say that.
You can't...
How do I say this?
I cannot tell you how many times when the Supreme Court will look at this great issue and focus on something and they'll ask, for example, was this an abuse of discretion?
Is this in any way a violative...
I mean, who knows?
But I think that the bigger picture that they're looking at right now...
And by the way, keep in mind what's going on with that, and I want to make this political, but that conservative wing who have been under attack, under attack, they stole the Dobbs memo, which we still don't know who did it, and believe me, you don't need Columbo to figure this one out.
You had...
Supreme Court justices whose lives and whose families were threatened during these, they're mad.
And then now you have new attacks going after their financials.
So they're now being given the opportunity to say, let's see, can we do something?
Is there a way for us to completely discredit this within the parameters of the Constitution?
You betcha.
They're human.
And aside from that, You don't need to be an expert to know this.
Politics, the franchise, you want it unfettered.
You want people to be able to speak.
You want them to be able to go to the ballot box and make their choice irrespective.
Again, who does this?
A clerk?
A secretary of state?
Does this go for local?
Local?
I mean, are we going to just completely reverse and upend the notion of the vote?
The franchise?
I can't believe how this is an insurrection.
That's the irony of this.
So, I know I said I was going to get you out of here a minute ago.
I'll get you out of here on this question, because I keep thinking of different things.
I think it's absolutely fascinating.
But this piece about, okay, Colorado has nine electoral votes, right?
So now if...
If President Trump is off the ballot in Colorado, nine electoral votes, that's not going to make or break him right now.
I mean, maybe, right?
So he's got, it's not like it's California, okay, what we're looking at.
He's not going to win in any way.
Well, right.
So, okay, so if he's taken off the ballot in Colorado, does this open up the doors now for other states to do, other liberal states to do the same thing?
Pennsylvania.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely.
In fact, They will be rushing.
They will be rushing to be within their particular framework of this, I guess, democratic fiefdom, where they want to be the ones who eventually will be able to look back and say, I was the one who finally did him in.
This man is being hit from every corner.
Remember, he was impeached twice.
They went after him with the emoluments clause.
They went after his family, his businesses.
Here in New York, he is on trial for something which basically he was found, in essence, guilty or libel of without ever having the chance to put any information on.
He has other charges.
We still have the Jack Smith cases.
We still have the Georgia case.
Look what they're doing to Rudy Giuliani.
This is a swarm.
This is like piranhas.
This is a feeding frenzy.
This man, what they've done to him is beyond the pale.
Look, if you don't like him, I understand it.
I get it.
But I can't believe this is allowed in our country.
And the best part is, here's the best part.
Law professors, judges, academics.
Lawyers are scared.
They're not going to go near this.
There are teams right now dedicated to going after any lawyer who does anything that could in any way be construed as perpetuating the myth of election denial.
How does he do it?
And the real question I have is, what does he want this for?
What is he possibly...
How does he get up every day and do this?
My dream, just because I...
Forget the legal.
My dream is to have him somehow, through the grace of God, win because Gavin Newsom is going to be the Democratic nominee.
Gavin Newsom is it.
This idea of Joe Biden, let's just forget this.
But if he could somehow...
Imagine if Trump would win.
And he would say, you know what?
No inauguration.
Forget it.
I'm going to work.
Let's go.
And he just starts.
And instead of holding up signs, he just unravels this Gordian knot.
I would love it.
Because the bottom line is simply this.
Whether you like Trump or not, it doesn't matter.
He's chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy is only for people with cancer.
Radiation is for only people who are...
It's their last thing.
Trump, in any other situation, might not be the best choice.
But the only way to shock treatment our system back into normalcy is with him.
Whether you like him or not.
Who else is going to do this?
Ron DeSantis?
Nikki Haley?
Come on!
You need somebody to go in there and...
Tear down the pillars.
I mean, Samson or whatever.
I mean, this is a fight of our lives.
It really is.
I mean, many people predicting we could see martial law, no election in 2024, that this could be a civil war.
I mean, one thing's for sure.
We cannot lecture other countries about democracy anymore.
That's for sure.
We're certainly seeing right now that the emperor has no clothes.
But somebody who does have clothes, and we're thankful that he wore clothes today, is Lionel from Lionel Nation on the YouTube channel.
We really appreciate it.
Check out his great YouTube channel.
Great constitutional awareness and insight.
We really thank you so much, Lionel.
And also, very brave man, just getting off the worst flu that he's ever had in his life.
So thank you for this and providing some insights on a crazy day here.
We really appreciate it.
It is my pleasure.
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Thank you so much for watching this segment here at Redacted.
We are live every day at 4 p.m. Eastern Time trying to share the stories that the mainstream media will not cover.
You should also come over and join our community of Redacted Rebels over at redacted.inc.
That's our private locals community where we can share exclusive content that we simply cannot share here on YouTube.
Come over and join the rebellion together right now by going to redacted.inc.
▲
Export Selection