There is no way, lawful or constitutional way, to keep President Trump off a ballot. The mirror of this corruption, of protecting Hunter and Joe and the whole Biden crime family is the abusive targeting of former President Trump. A with indictments by the Biden Justice Department and democratic politicians in New York and Fulton County, Georgia, and the Fulton County, Georgia case, and one of the case currently in Washington, DC, by the Biden Justice Department, target Trump for engaging in what any sensible person would see as First Amendment protected activity to dispute an election activity protected by the Constitution in his role as president, to raise questions about whether the laws were filed and his rights as a candidate, to raise questions about the way an election was conducted and what his rights are in an election dispute. 

And so the Biden people want to jail him specifically for doing that and trying to try him in court. Now, they obviously are worried that arresting him four times hasn't been enough to derail his candidacy. In fact, it looks like he's more likely than not. And his hold on the top slot in the republican primary has dramatically increased since they've begun these string of arrests and indictments against him. 

Now, whether that will help in the general election, I think everyone can debate, but clearly the left is still nervous about it. So they obviously don't think abusing the rule of law, abusing office, turning the Justice Department, the FBI and prosecutors'offices, in Fulton County, Georgia, and in New York City into essentially the arms of the Biden campaign, and abusing those offices to jail the political opponent of President Biden. 

That isn't enough. Now, the left has concocted a new scheme, which is to falsely accuse President Trump of insurrection, which is factually false. Certainly the Biden people had a chance to indict him for, quote, insurrection. They haven't. And of course, he wasn't involved in insurrection. He was just raising questions about a challenge to electoral college slates in Congress. That's not insurrection. That's trying to use the laws and the Constitution to ensure that the election result is lawful and accurate and reflects the will of the american people. 

People have a right to do that, and Democrats have done that time and time again. But evidently, when Republicans do it, it's outlawed. So it was an insurrection. Trump wasn't involved in insurrection. Everyone knows that. Who, as I say, is rational and sensible. And on top of that, though, they use that as an excuse to have the 14th amendment somehow keep him off the ballot. So arresting him isn't good enough. 

In fact, he could possibly be in jail next year. That evidently isn't going to be good enough because it won't keep him off the ballot. So they got to think of a way to keep them off the ballot. So now they're playing the 14th amendment card. Now, I don't know about you, but I think I tweeted this out. I forget specifically what I said, but I'm going to try to quote myself. 

Fraudulently using the 14th amendment and falsely accusing someone to keep someone off a ballot, falsely accusing someone running for president, the number one candidate for president at this time of insurrection, isn't that insurrection? Would you misstate the constitution and misuse the constitution to target your political opponent and upend an election that way? Now, the presumption in all of these media discussions of the 14th amendment was, oh, if he did insurrection, if he was involved in insurrection, which is a big if, and I don't think that's true. 

Well, the 14th amendment means he can't be president. Well, that's not true. Then let's go to the text of the Constitution, which almost always the left is loathed to highlight, and it's 14th amendment section three. It's the relevant section. There you see on your screen. I want you to read it carefully because this is going to be, you'll be tested on this later. No person shall be a 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 have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove such disability. 

So what's missing there, as Michael McKayze, is highlighted, a former attorney general in the Wall Street Journal, Mark Levin, is highlighted. Others who look at this issue closely highlighted what's missing there. The president. There's no language in there about a president. The president is not an officer of the United States. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress. So there's no limitation on being a president, assuming they even did this, insurrection or rebellion, who, as an officer of the United States, because there's no reference there to a president. 

So the left is trying to suggest that the president is an officer of the United States. So Trump took an oath as an officer of the United States. An officer of the United States, dear friends, is someone who is appointed by a president or by one of his appointees. The president of the United States is not an officer of the United States under law. Do you think the founders just, or in this case, the writers of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, forgot to add president in there as someone who was covered by this. 

So the 14th Amendment, a plain reading of the 14th Amendment means that there is no way, lawful or constitutional way, to keep President Trump off a ballot. Now, is that going to be the end of the discussion? Of course not. You've had a few conservative law professors pretend to find a meaning in the 14th Amendment that isn't there, that it applies to the president. Again, no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress. 

Okay, so it's no prohibition on the president under this reading. Even if they had previously taken an oath? Maybe I'm misreading this, but I think I'm fairly reading it. Even if they had previously taken an oath and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion, they still could be elected president. But a presidential oath of office to defend the constitution isn't covered under this constitutional provision. Now, the left's response is, Tom, you mean the president can engage in insurrection and rebellion and be eligible for president of the United States? My answer is, that's what it says. 

Now, I wanted to take a step back. Again, there was no insurrection. The president was not involved in it. If there was, of course, I don't think anyone's been charged with insurrection. There's been these, in my view, absurd seditious conspiracy charges here in Washington, DC, that have led to over the top sentences for people who weren't really involved in seditious conspiracy. But that's a whole other matter. So this is a straightforward analysis. 

Does the 14th amendment apply in these circumstances? The answer is no. There is no good faith basis to insert that President Trump was involved in an insurrection. Or is there a good faith basis to suggest that the 14th amendment provision here even applies to him as a former president? It doesn't. It doesn't apply to him as a former president, and it doesn't restrict his ability to run for office. 

It's a straightforward analysis. Now, as I suggested, there's a debate about it, and the left doesn't care what the rules are. They make it up as they go along. There's already a left wing lawsuit in Colorado trying to keep him off the ballot. You can be sure that a secretary of state or two who is friendly to the left is going to concoct a reason using this as a basis to keep Trump off the ballot, and then it will be adjudicated, hopefully in a way that allows Trump to get back on the ballot as the law and the constitution requires. 

But in the meantime, judicial watch is obviously looking at this issue quite carefully. Our lawyers are examining the constitutional issues here. I'm giving you kind of my summary analysis and my layman's understanding of this. But in the meantime, we know secretaries of state have been talking with each other about this, and we've initiated a massive Freedom of Information act investigation into this plan, this scheme to keep Trump off the ballot. 

So I'm just not commenting about this. I want to let you know that we are doing something about it as well. We want to find out who's talking to who, what they're talking about and whether and how they're avoiding and interfering with the election by frankly, even considering this to any significant know. It's just another way to undermine Trump's rights to run for president, undermine his candidacy. But in the end, really, it's an attack on you, isn't it, dear voter? I mean, you should have a right to have a presidential candidate on your ballot, and you don't have to vote for them one way or the other. 

But there shouldn't be some leftist group that puts their thumb on the scales, some judge that puts their thumb on the scales, some local prosecutor who puts their thumb on the scales, or a special counsel who puts his thumb on the scales, or a federal judge, or a state court judge who come in and think they can run the federal elections by deciding who can be on a ballot for president, where the Constitution obviously doesn't give them that right, or in the case of the prosecutions of know, pretend that it's just a normal prosecution. 

And it doesn't matter if the whole election system in the United States is upended because they're given the time of day to these political prosecutions that the courts should summarily dismiss almost immediately. So our republic continues to be under attack, judicial watch continues to expose and highlight the abuses, give you the truth about what's really going on, and hopefully in educating you, adding to the negative pushback on this abuse of power. 

So I'll let you know when and if we get any documents on this issue, this 14th amendment issue. But it's all part of the piece. It's all part of this effort to upend a constitutional government and really just end elections for all practical purposes. Because if candidates can only be on the ballot if Joe Biden says they can be, or a prosecutor in Georgia, says they can be, or a secretary of state in Colorado says he can. 

Otherwise, there's practically know you could vote for him in another state, but because he's not on the ballot in another state, your vote isn't negated. That's not an election. It's not an election. That's a banana republic. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .