Summary
➡ The text discusses allegations of misconduct against state officials interfering with elections and presents concerns about the 2024 elections being compromised through biased charges and judgements against Trump. It argues that Trump is being unfairly targeted with accusations of insurrection, illegitimate charges and hurdles created by bureaucrats and judges. Continuing, it discusses the potential of Trump being jailed based on these charges and sets forth a defense around presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts. It calls for these indictments to be dismissed and describes their potential long-term damaging effects to the American justice system.
➡ This text covers various political issues, highlighting the role of the president in legislative processes and the significance of an elected official’s responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. It argues that President Trump’s legal team makes a valid point concerning the ineligibility of subsequent prosecution following a failed impeachment attempt. The text further discusses the highly political nature of the DC appeals court and potential manipulation of future elections. It closes by criticizing Congress for fully funding President Biden’s alleged ‘invasion’ and expressing disbelief towards overall U.S politics.
➡ The speaker criticizes both political parties for not resisting what they see as cultural Marxism, misuse of tax funds, and the silencing of conservative voices. They emphasize the importance of citizens actively voicing their perspectives and Judicial Watch’s role in combating governmental corruption through litigation.
Transcript
But the 14th Amendment, even if applied, or even if it applied here, doesn’t apply to Trump in the sense that it’s not about the presidency. The 14th Amendment, the plain language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t cover presidents. And of course, there was no insurrection on January 6. Here’s another fact check for you. There was no insurrection on January 6. So there can be no finding by any fair minded body that President Trump engaged in insurrection, because it just didn’t happen.
But what happened in Colorado was the result of a Colorado Supreme Court decision. The court there is dominated. It’s only Democrat appointees, and it was a four three decision, even among those leftist justices. So even three justices of the Supreme Court there were skeptical of the four judge majority power grab. And even worse, in Maine, it was a democratic legislative. Well, she’s an appointee of the Democrat controlled legislature in Maine, secretary of state.
She’s not an elected official. She’s formerly a politician, formerly an elector for President Biden in 2020. And she just on her own power, decided to strike Trump from the ballot. Now, technically, Trump is still on the ballot in Colorado, or will be. Technically, he still is on the ballot in Maine, or in theory will be, because both cases, the court and the secretary of state in Maine stayed their decisions pending appeal.
And sure enough, the Colorado case has been already appealed to the Supreme Court by the Colorado state Republican Party, whose rights are being violated. You know, let’s take a step back here to Colorado. It’s in violation of state law there because the state law doesn’t allow the courts to adjudicate this. It’s a violation of federal law, it’s a violation of the US Constitution. And for the courts to come in or in Maine, a secretary of state, to come in and really just engage in a power grab, right, seize power from the people.
To knock a candidate off the ballot is unprecedented. Now, I want to go to the 14th amendment because it’s kind of a plain, it’s easy to read, it’s easy to understand, and I think we’ve talked about this before. Section three. This is the key to section here. No person shall be senator or representative in Congress or 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 and 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. So what do you see missing there? Let’s go back. Bring that back up. Do you see the word president there? Look. Do you see the president? The office of the president there? I see elector of president and vice president. Now, that’s different than the president. That’s someone who’s designated it by the state or through, in the case.
Now, under our election systems, you vote for electors either directly or indirectly when you vote for president, but it doesn’t apply to the president. And they say, well, or hold any office under the United States. Well, officers under the United States are what? Those are appointees of the president. So it doesn’t apply to the president. And then go, let’s go to section five. Well, how would this even work? Right.
Well, section five of the 14th Amendment says the Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. And as I told you earlier, Congress indeed has enforced the provisions of that article, at least the section three segment, by barring anyone who engaged in insurrection from federal office like that. But it doesn’t apply to the president. It simply doesn’t. Now, that was written.
The 14th amendment was passed, obviously, in the aftermath of the Civil War. The writers of the 14th Amendment knew what they were doing. Indeed, one of the most famous supreme court justices of all time, I think it was Chief justice chase. Maybe it was story. Well, anyway, I don’t think it was story. It was chief justice chase at the time. He found it didn’t apply to the president.
And what the California Supreme Court and the secretary of state have said was, oh, we can apply this law. And you know what the implication of that is? Anyone can apply that constitutional provision to any politician they don’t like. So, for instance, judiciary watch under this theory of law, could go and challenge President Biden’s position on the primary ballot in New Hampshire or in Florida or California and say he’s engaged in insurrection or rebellion by refusing to enforce immigration law or by trying to throw his opponent in jail, he’s upending the rule of law, rejecting his oath of office.
He’s an insurrectionist. Indeed, anyone can be accused of insurrection and taken off the ballot, if this is the theory, at least by individuals in the states, private litigants, bureaucrats, like the secretary of state in Maine. And obviously, that can’t be the law right now. What I fear will be the case is that they will say only President Trump can be removed. No one else can be. So, you know, we might think there’ll be a double standard, or there is no double standard for the left.
They have a single standard. Punish their enemies and protect their friends. And that’s what’s going on here with president Trump. It obviously would upend our election system. It’s an attack on the First Amendment rights of citizens, the free association rights of citizens, to nominate the person of their choice to be on the primary ballot, or in the case of the general election, the general ballot. And a bureaucrat can say no because they’ve chosen to interpret it, interpret a constitutional provision, and they say, well, there are other qualifications that you have to abide by that states can enforce.
Well, those are straightforward ministerial issues. This is a person over 35. I mean, not a factual finding of insurrection. Trump has never been charged with insurrection. There’s been no charge of insurrection related to January 6. As a matter of fact, no charge. Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department, which is pursuing unhinged prosecutions. And I’ll talk about that further against Trump. They’re not going with insurrection charges. They said federal law already prohibits insurrection, obviously.
So this is a real dangerous time for America, because the left has decided that they don’t want to play by the rules. And I think they’ve long decided that they don’t want to play by the rules. But here it’s quite readily apparent what’s happening. They’re using this provision of the Constitution or misusing it, pretending it applies when it doesn’t, to try to turn the election into fundamentally a one party election.
Right. The only candidate that you’d be able to effectively vote for under their theory is Joe Biden. Putin would recognize what’s going on in Colorado. Putin would recognize what’s going on in Maine, because that’s what they do in Russia. That’s what they do in China. That’s what they do in Venezuela. That’s what they do in these authoritarian, totalitarian countries. They harass their political opposition, usually imprison them, which is what they’re also trying to do.
Against Trump or find ways to keep their names off the ballot by making up violations of law and having politicized judges or officials suppress the political opposition of a regime during the so called elections. So this is about the most direct attack on free and fair elections in american history. There’s nothing comparable, other maybe, than during the civil war where you had so much violence around the elections and the threat of violence around the elections.
But there’s nothing comparable in the modern America where you’ve had a political party effectively endorse this power grab. And so when the Supreme Court of Colorado tells Coloradans, can’t vote for Joe Biden for Donald Trump, right, that’s taking rights away from everyone else who has an interest in seeing Donald Trump being the nominee for the president. And if it applies on the primary ballot, why wouldn’t it apply to the general ballot? So this is the theory that we’re going to have Trump’s name off the ballot and make it hard for him to win election.
Ironically, it may not prevent him from winning election. Although Maine’s close enough. I don’t know. Maine generally, it could possibly go to Trump. Colorado, I think, is significantly democrat and is unlikely to go towards Trump. But who knows? I mean, even in states where you lose, you want to be able to fight. The first Amendment requires it. So what should be done here? Well, if we had an honest Justice Department, they’d be prosecuting these state officials for misconduct, for trying to interfere with our elections.
I mean, want to talk about insurrection? Insurrection is lawlessly abusing your power to try to keep a political opponent off the ballot. That’s a violation of the civil rights of millions of Americans, and it would undo our republic. And let me be clear here. The 2024 elections are already compromised. They’re compromised by this conduct here with the false allegation and smear that Trump is an insurrectionist and trying to make it more substantive.
The charge by having politically partisan judges or secretaries of state make the finding, based on the January 6 report, YouTube videos, press clippings, really kangaroo court proceedings that have resulted in this. And then, of course, you have the charges being brought by the Biden Justice Department for non crimes, similarly against by Fulton County Democrats for non crimes, and Alvin Bragg for non crimes. Up in New York, all Democratic Party politicians trying to jail the number one political opponent of the Democrats.
And I don’t like to go by here at judicial watch, I try to avoid labeling parties. I mean, I like to point out philosophical differences with politicians as opposed to party labels. But to be direct and to be truthful is to highlight that the democratic party is pushing this. This is a democratic party partisan operation. The appointees in Colorado who are abusing their power are appointees of democratic governors.
In Colorado, it’s a democratic politician who became a bureaucrat, the secretary of state, top election official there in Maine. Now, the good news is in Michigan, they turned aside. The court there turned aside, really without much comment, if at all, any comment, the less attempt to throw Trump off the ballot there. So some courts are rejecting the invitation. Now, will the Supreme Court take up the Colorado case? I suspect they will.
How quickly will they move? I don’t know. I suspect the Supreme Court will knock all of this out. But in the meantime, Trump will have to fight. Right? You only have so much capacity when you’re as a campaign or as a political party operation when you’re involved in an election year, right? And so rather than being able to run straightforward for president, in addition to having to face these outrageous prosecutions, he’s having to face hurdles placed in front of him by lawless bureaucrats and judges that no other previous president has faced.
It’s election interference 101 by the left. And unless the Supreme Court steps in, others are going to knock him off the ballot, he won’t be on the ballot. You won’t be able to vote for Trump in certain states unless the Supreme Court does something here. And on top of that, there’s this desperate effort, as we talked about before, to jail Trump before the election based on these fake prosecutions.
They’re not literally fake prosecutions, they’re prosecutions of fake crimes, were non crimes by Trump. Now, you may recall that here in the District of Columbia, where they’re trying to jail Trump for questioning the election, Trump made the defense that, look, I was president of the United States, and it stands to reason, given prior Justice Department position and the history and structure of the Constitution, that you can’t criminally prosecute me for doing my job as president, which includes ensuring the election laws are upheld and the right result is pursued in Congress.
Now, that was rejected by the lower court. He appealed it, and the Jack Smith people were afraid that appeal would slow down their trial, which they want to have in March, no matter what, because there’s a political purpose to having the trial in March, because it more likely ensures his conviction in the left wing district of Columbia. That’s the jury pool here and potentially jailing. And Jack Smith’s people, they not only are fighting it at the appellate court, but they asked the Supreme Court to skip over the appellate court review and just take it up.
Don’t wait for the appeals court to rule as you normally would in virtually every other case. Just take it up because it’s an emergency. And the only emergency was they had an election they wanted to interfere with, and they wouldn’t be able to do it as well if President Trump’s due process rights were considered by the courts in the ordinary course. And thankfully, the Supreme Court, without comment, rejected Jack Smith’s faint.
And now the appellate court is rushing it along because it’s full of anti Trumpers. So I told you about the danger to our republican system, how they want to upend our whole election system by making it possible for virtually anyone in the country, maybe even the world, to come into court and try to get people thrown off the ballots based on allegations of insurrection, however far fetched. And on top of that, now they want to jail.
You can go to jail as president for everything you do as president. Does that make sense to you? This is what President Trump’s lawyers opened up with in the appeal of their issue about how immunity over the issue of whether immunity should be provided to the president. In this case, Trump’s lawyers, and I tweeted this out, lay out the dangers of Jack Smith’s political attack on our constitutional republic.
During the 234 years from 1789 to 2023, no current or former president had ever been criminally prosecuted for his four official acts. That unbroken tradition died this year, and the historical fallout is tremendous. The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecutions that will plague our nation for many decades to come, and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our republic, the confidence of american citizens and an independent, and the confidence of the american citizens and an independent justice system or judicial system.
Under our system of separated powers, the judicial branch cannot sit in judgment over president’s officials over a president’s official acts. That doctrine is not controversial. It was treated as self evident and foundational from the dawn of the republic, and it flows directly from the exclusive vesting clause of article two in 18 three. Chief Justice Marshall endorsed it, writing in Marbury versus Madison that a president’s official acts can never be examinable by the courts.
The structure of our government, the text of our Constitution and its early commentators, common law immunity doctrines and our political history, the Supreme Court’s analogous immunity doctrines and the policy considerations rooted in a separation of powers all dictate that no president, current or former, may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. Nor may a president face criminal prosecution based on conduct for which he was acquitted by the US Senate.
The indictment against President Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional. It must be dismissed. The brief later details how the Biden Smith operation is trying to criminalize Trump’s privileged official presidential acts. All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts. They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties squarely as chief executive of the United States to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.
First, President Trump’s public statements and tweets about alleged fraud and irregularity in the federal election fall within the outer perimeter of presidential duty. And that’s a technical term, outer perimeter. That’s from a prior Supreme Court decision suggesting that the president is protected, including from being targeted for his duties, including those on the outer perimeter of the presidency, to which communicating with the public on matters of federal concern is absolutely central.
This is apparently apparent. This is especially apparent with respect to President Trump’s tweets. His Twitter account has been held to be an official government channel of communications based on overwhelming evidence. President Trump’s other public statements are also plainly official. Second, President Trump’s communications with the US Department of Justice about investigating widespread reports of election fraud and deliberating about replacing the acting attorney general are quintessential presidential acts. The president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which include the numerous prohibitions on federal election crime.
Directing the attorney general to enforce these fall squarely within the take care power. Like I wish Biden would take care that our immigration laws are faithfully executed. But he’s not. Deliberating about whether to replace a cabinet level officer is a core exercise of the appointment and removal power. Third, communications with state officials about their exercise of official duties with respect to federal election falls within a presidential official duties.
The president’s take care duty includes the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the constitution itself, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the Constitution. Again, that’s a quote from a case, so when I was quoting that on twitter, I was taking out the citations in their legal brief. This includes taking steps to ensure the integrity of federal elections, such as communicating with state officials who play a critical role in administering those federal elections.
Presidential electors exercise federal functions under and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by the Constitution of the United States, so the dispute about electors is something within his purview as president. Fourth, communicating with members of Congress, including the vice president, and his capacity as president of the Senate, about their exercise of their official duties lies at the core of presidential responsibility. The president has intimate and extensive responsibility in the legislative process.
Article two specifically provides that the president recommend to Congress’s consideration such measures that he shall judge necessary and expedient. That includes the executive branch making its views known to Congress on all matters in which it has responsibilities, duties, and opinions. Historical precedent from President Grant’s intervention in the disputed Hayes Tilden election supports this conclusion. You should look up that Hayes Tilden election. That was something else. It shows you the big lie that you’re not allowed to dispute elections.
Trump’s legal team also makes a key argument that the less failed impeachment of Trump’s constitutionality of Trump constitutionally prescribes any subsequent criminal prosecution on the same issues. Now, I have to say when I first heard that Trump was or his attorneys was making the argument that because he was impeached and acquitted at the Senate trial on these issues, any subsequent pursuit of him on this would be double jeopardy.
You can’t be tried twice on the same crime, especially when you’re acquitted the first time around. And I remember thinking, well, I don’t know if I buy that right. Is that process substantial enough to be the equivalent of a criminal investigation or a criminal proceeding? And I think Trump, after consideration, has the better of the argument here. And it’s an additional argument. The impeachment judgment clause thus protects presidents from harassing criminal prosecutions by requiring Congress first to make the political judgment that the president should be convicted.
If, as here, the Senate acquits the president, the Senate has necessarily concluded the president should remain in office and is not disqualified from service. For a prosecutor to conclude otherwise undermines the conclusion. Indeed, a successful prosecution voids it and arrogates to himself a judgment the Constitution reserves for Congress during this Christmas season. Let’s pray. And this is what I say at the end, and I think it’s worth repeating, let’s pray.
The Lord showers the DC appeals court with the gifts of wisdom, discernment, and courage to confront and stop the Biden regime’s assault on the very structure of our constitutional government. For as the DC appeals court is notoriously political and reflexively anti Trump, it would be truly a miracle if the rule of law prevails at this stage of the legal proceedings. And of course, no matter what happens in the appellate court, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be the next stop in this historic battle for constitutional.
You know, I hope you paid attention as best as you’re able, given my ham handed reading of the document there, the Trump’s legal document, to those arguments, because those are the core arguments, not only to try to jail Trump, but also to keep him off the ballot, because a lot of this applies to the insurrection nonsense that’s being pushed by the leftists in the various states. So there’s a coordinated effort across the land by the Democratic Party and their leftist allies to destroy free and fair elections in 2024.
Indeed, President Biden, in responding to news of the Colorado Supreme Court outrageous and unprecedented decision, said, oh, I think Trump engaged in insurrection, but I’ll let the courts decide. Who’s he kidding? He all but endorsed the removal of his political opponent from the ballot. Never before in american history has this type of activity taken place. So this is why we got to have the strong legal arguments. I mean, to me, the legal arguments and the constitutional arguments are readily apparent to any honest jurist.
But as we’ve seen before, especially with respect to Trump, serious judicial decision making sometimes goes out the door because of, you know, and on the top of everything else our republic is facing. So let’s see what happens here again, and I’m going to repeat it. Even though some of our friends in the Congress don’t like me saying this all the time, Congress can put a stop to a lot of this.
They can defund states that are abusing the civil rights of President Trump and millions of their citizens through these prosecutions or illicit efforts to take him off the ballot. They can defund and shut down the Jack Smith investigation. Frankly, they should be investigating the Jack Smith investigation. And there’s going to be another funding fight later in January. So they’re going to come back from their extended Christmas vacation.
Two weeks. Did you get two weeks off for Christmas? And there’s another funding deadline, at least the first of which I think is in January. January 19. Right. So you’re going to see all these Republicans in the House criticize what’s going on with Jack Smith or what’s going on in Maine and Colorado, yet they’ll do nothing in terms of the power of the purse to restrain federal funding for that.
In the case of Jack Smith, they could shut it down completely by denying funding for that operation. The states, it would be more indirect. They would say, we don’t want any part of it, and we’re going to pull back federal funding because of your abuses or tie federal funding to your respect for the Constitution and the civil rights of President Trump. To deny Trump access to the ballot and the american people access to vote for the person of their choice in a lawless.
We, of course, Congress has a positive obligation to ensure no tax dollars are going towards that abuse. And similarly, why are they funding the invasion? Speaker Johnson has been calling out on Twitter and elsewhere, President Biden’s invasion. I’m sure you’ve been watching the news. I mean, even the mainstream media is covering the deluge, the flood of aliens illegally crossing the United States. Numbers never seen before in american history.
Numbers never seen before in the history of humanity. Millions crossing the border. And then we use our tax dollars to fly and bust them throughout the land and settle them all over the place. They just released the most recent numbers for the last fiscal year. I guess the fiscal year goes through the end of. Was it beginning of October or the end of October? It’s October to October, right? Of the 2.
5 million encounters at the border, the southern border, the Biden administration has only deported 5. 7% of them. That’s how I analyze the numbers. And since October, obviously, there’s been another, I think there’s been another 2 million or so since October. I’ve seen various numbers to how many have flooded across the border since Biden’s come in? 10 million, 6 million, 7 million. I don’t know exactly what the number is, but it’s an astronomical number, and Congress is just whistling past a graveyard on it.
And the republican controlled House fully funded the Biden operation that allows these people to come across the border. They can change the law, change the funding mechanism to prevent the use of monies to fund the invasion. Now you say, well, how can they do that? It’s only one house of the Congress that the Republicans have control of. Yes, but unless that House votes to fund the government or an agency, that agency can’t operate.
That’s the leverage that the Republicans in the House, or at least the leadership, has refused to exercise to save the country. Our country is going to be mean. Our republic is under attack in so many ways, and many of our friends complain about it on the hill. But are funding. Part of Judicial Watch’s work is to work with Congress where we can. We provide them information, the material that we get, and encourage them to do the right thing as best we’re able.
But you can see why Congress is just not something I enjoy dealing with because I know what they can do and what they refuse to do. They’re always impressed that judicial watch is able to get the documents that we are able to get, which is great. I mean, we get documents Congress often can’t get. But their competitive advantage with judicial watch is shutting the whole thing down. You don’t give us the documents, we’ll shut you down.
You violate the law, we’ll shut you down. All judicial watch can do is put it on a silver platter saying, this is what’s going on. What are you going to do about it? So I’m done. I’m done covering and excusing. Not that I really ever did, but I’m not doing it. I’m not going to do it. When Congress does the right thing, I’ll praise them. And when they do the wrong thing, I’m going to criticize them no matter who’s running the show.
And right now the Republicans running the House are failing the american people. We have an invasion that they’ve fully funded. We have this attack on our fundamental freedoms, our civil rights and our election systems through the Biden Justice Department as democratic party allies, that they fully fund mass censorship, that they fully funded, you name it, the Defense Department funding. They just funded the Defense Department fully. No check on the attack on our system, on the attack on our military by the cultural Marxists who are running the military, trying to alienate our troops from the America, the country that they’re supposed to be defending, misusing tax dollars to kill unborn children or mutilate troops and their family members through this transgender extremism that’s a major project at the Defense Department, fully funded by Republicans in the House, just to be clear, Republicans, so judicial watch will recall, you should know, is independent.
We’re nonpartisan. The left doesn’t understand. Well, judicial watch how you’re conservative and you say you’re nonpartisan. Well, it’s because when someone says that, they’re ignorant. Nonpartisan means we are not affiliated with a party. We’re independent of political parties. So we need leadership from both political parties. And I don’t excuse the Democrats. I mean, if you’re an honest Democrat, why are you letting communists run the show in your party? If you’re a Republican, why are you letting fearful politicians, cowardly politicians run your party? If you’re patriots, you need to step up and let people know what you think.
And you provide the leadership through your God given First Amendment rights to petition your government that the left is trying to destroy. And you don’t want to exercise those rights. Now, you may not have them a year or two or three or four from now because they’ve been decimated. So you can be sure judicial watch keep on doing what we do to ensure the government isn’t corrupt. Uncover what the government’s up to, stop it where we can through litigation.
But it’s a big job, and our councils of government need to step up. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button. And like our video down below. .
Author
