Border crisis a tit fortat type thing and also Jack Smith could be subpoena over the politicization of Justice because well it seems the big picture the uniting element is that all of these legal attacks against Trump look very political all right first off folks California is now looking for a way to
Remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential bout this follows a state supreme court decision in Colorado which we’ve been talking about and this takes place as the nation Waits on a US Supreme Court decision on whether or not Trump can be included on the ballots again that Supreme Court decis decision
Is going to be the one that ends us all or makes it so Trump can’t run now the lieutenant governor of California Elena C kaanak kinois wrote a letter calling for the California Secretary of State Dr Shirley Weber to remove former president Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary ballot let me show
You what she wrote in this letter this is from the office of the lieutenant governor and she said this based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Anderson V Griswald I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former president Donald Trump from California’s presidential primary ballot and she continues stating California
Must stand on the right side of History California is obligated to determine if Trump is an eligible for the California ballot for the same reasons described in Anderson the Colorado decision can be the basis for for a similar decision here in our state the Constitution is
Clear you must be 35 years old and not be an insurrectionist now let me pause briefly on some of this she’s doing this fishing Expedition which she says I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former president Donald Trump you know from the presidential primary
Ballot and then she says California must stand on the right side of History what is she saying she’s saying that basically she wants to go after Trump for me for things other than what the suspected crime is if she’s saying she urges them to explore every legal option
To remove Trump from the ballot it means they do not yet have a legal basis to do so and because they do not yet have a legal basis to do so she’s urging them to look for one explore every legal option those are exact words and then
Why is she doing it well she says California must stand on the right side of History she’s suggesting that her own views of Donald Trump mean that voting for him or allowing him to be on the ballots means they’re standing on the wrong side of history and so there’s an
Element here of what appears to be personal bias but she continues and she says this and briefly I’ll say as well you must be 35 years old and not be an insurrectionist Donald Trump has never been found guilty of being an insurrectionist he was never found guilty of being involved with that that
Is in no way a legal basis that is merely a political and media narrative as going around that has no basis in law and so they’re talking about using law to go after someone on that using a label that is not based in a legal determination well what are they doing
Right but she ends it by saying this she says this is a dire matter and puts at stake the sanctity of our Constitution and our democracy imagine talking about democracy when you’re trying to remove people’s ability to vote for somebody you know anyways though now Daily Mail according to them this lieutenant
Governor who is also campaigning to become the governor of California in 2026 by the way guess what she is a George Soros backed Progressive George Soros has supported her campaign financially and now keep in mind too that the US Supreme Court now just briefly what’s happening with Colorado this whole thing
Colorado has given the US Supreme Court until the 4th of next month to make its determination will it accept the case or will it not if the US Supreme Court takes that takes up that case um it’s going to apply not just to Colorado but to every single state in the country and
Depending on what they say they could make the determination that no Donald Trump cannot be held to section three of the 14th Amendment which essentially says that if you uh if a lieutenant or you know not not president by the way it says that if an individual you
Know uh engages in Insurrection supports it gives material Comfort to and so on then that person can become ineligible to hold office again the problem is is that based on the language of the Constitution which Supreme Court’s got to look at uh it doesn’t necessarily apply to presidents and this has been
Determined repeatedly in lower courts uh we’ll see if this is interpreted as being you know relevant to Donald Trump there’s some deeper background we’ll be going into with all this that suggests that maybe there’s been some foul play for a very long time setting the stage
For this but the Supreme Court right now can either throw this out across the whole country or set it in stone throughout the whole country and whatever they choose to do is going to impact without a doubt whether whether or not Donald Trump can run for president now look as this moves forward
One of the judges on the Colorado supreme court because remember you know they voted four to three on this they’re all Democrat they’re all Democrats right the Supreme Court in Colorado despite that it was still pretty split it barely passed in Colorado and one of those justices now
Because this is the state supreme court not the federal Supreme Court right one of those judges is coming forward in listing the concerns they had and there were some real serious ones in terms of how the case was handled now Newsweek says that Justice Carlos sour took particular issue with how the
Proceedings unfolded he argued it says that Trump has not been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an Insurrection so he hasn’t had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant are you getting that Donald Trump the the Judgment in
Colorado is based on the idea that Donald Trump engaged in Insurrection what’s the basis of the idea that Donald Trump engaged in Insurrection well nothing there’s never been a court there’s never been a a trial on that Trump was never found guilty on it there was no legal determination coming out
With that to that conclusion the idea that Donald Trump engaged in Insurrection rather than being a legal issue is a political narrative and based not on law but instead on partisan narrative the Supreme Court in Colorado made this determination and Justice samore raises this issue he says this
There was no fair trial either and he pointed to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers let alone anything else and he continues by stating I have been involved in the justice system for 30 years now and what took place here does
Not resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom and samour also took issue with the District Court’s handling of the case again back in Colorado he disagreed with the district court not allowing experts to be deposed and the decision to limit e expert testimony in other words it looks like the Supreme
Court in Colorado just ruled by decree they just did whatever the heck they wanted there was not a jury there was not a fair trial there was not anything that would allow Trump to you know make his case there were no there was very limited you know amount of experts to be
Deposed it was the justices in Chicago making a judgment on their own on a foundation that was never formed again the idea that Trump committed Insurrection and he likened the case to fitting a square peg in a round hole keep in mind this is one of the justices
Who was on that decision right he voted against it of course and of course you know it’s the district court allowed in writing that it was a proced he wrote that it’s a procedural Frankenstein in terms of the way it was handled he says in my view what trans spired in this
Litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands suggesting that maybe what the Supreme Court in Colorado did is itself not of sound legal basis which could potentially get it thrown out but we’ll see if the Supreme Court says in the of course federal government now the US Supreme Court right the one
Across the whole country will still need to rule on this and again it’s likely going to focus on the main issue of whether section three of the 14th Amendment applies to presidents that’s a basic legal argument but interestingly the case is now raising an entire separate debate not focused specifically
On the reach of the 14th Amendment but instead on the issue that Donald Trump as we’ve mentioned was never found guilty of engaging an Insurrection and how do you make a determination based on something that an individual was never found guilty of they are sentencing Donald Trump for a
Crime that he never went to trial on a crime that never had a jury a crime that never again that he was never actually fully really accused of in court of law but they did it anyway again Trump was not found guilty of insurrection in court it’s only a narrative in the media
And among the political establishment and so Trump essentially is guilty through political narrative not through court of law now for the rest of this episode I’ll be talking about how the court used a crime that Trump was never found guilty of as the basis to remove him from the ballot
For 2024 and how Republicans are now considering interestingly ways to remove Joe Biden from the 2024 ballot as well but all of this for all of it you have to join us on Epic TV exclusively Link in the description below and also join me for the live chat there I’ll also be
Releas releasing exclusive interview viws from turning point we just got back actually only on Epic TV EPO tv.com like the one I did with Patrick Bet David a value tainment about why Society needs to have uncomfortable conversations let me show you the trailer for that before we
Jump the reason why debate is necessary because Clash of opposing ideas leads to the better idea it exposes a leak in the other one so we just need more of it so my my Approach is I like to bring people from all walks of life it doesn’t matter
What whether we agree or not I like to talk to you I think the challenge of what happened with many of these platforms where everybody just wants to talk to people they agree with is a leak because it it it shows a sign of fear that you’re afraid of something being
Hidden God forbid you get called out maybe you look embarrassing when your answer is not right or you’re being exposed and that’s okay we just need to have more conversations and that’s been our style that’s what what’s worked for us for the last few years we need debate
We need discourse we need disagreements we need arguments
