The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the violent attempts to halt the vote on January 6th were an act of insurrection, and that President Trump should be disqualified from being seated on the Supreme Court because of it. The Justice Department challenged this ruling.
00:02:12.340Think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide,
00:02:20.240because your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.
00:02:27.800On your theory, would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?
00:02:39.260I'm not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question.
00:02:41.540If you don't have an answer, fair enough, we'll move on.
00:02:44.060Impeachment's the only way to validate that they don't have the ability to hold that office and should be removed.
00:02:49.560A plethora of Confederates still around.
00:02:52.940There were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices.
00:02:59.080So it seemed that that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified.
00:03:10.540Well, there were certainly national candidates who were disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them.
00:03:15.260I understand that, but that's not this case.
00:03:17.580The framers were concerned about charismatic rebels who might rise through the ranks up to and including the presidency of the United States.
00:03:25.180But then why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in Section 3?
00:03:30.720I'm a believer in our country and I'm a believer in the Supreme Court.
00:03:33.740So I listened today and I thought our arguments were very, very strong.
00:04:03.740From the Philly area, got to support that going in there and just really having great answers for the court, having excellent, I think, arguments for the president on behalf of the fact that this ridiculous case.
00:04:16.940Remember, this incredibly insane case from the state of Colorado, which, by the way, of course, will have other bearing on states throughout the nation that are trying to do this.
00:04:27.020These lefty states, these blue states that are running around saying that President Trump should be ineligible for office because of January 6th.
00:04:36.160It sounds as though the court is just completely not even interested in this.
00:04:40.720It's so bad that they've even lost the libs on the court.
00:04:45.780Kagan doesn't sound like she's down for this.
00:04:48.100Ketaji Brown doesn't sound like she's in for this.
00:04:55.480However, that's how bad Colorado's standing is here because it really comes down to this.
00:05:00.520It comes down to and this was the key question, I think, of the entire the entire brief.
00:05:04.820And by the way, we've, you know, hats off to the great Clarence Thomas, an absolute national treasure.
00:05:13.480The Democrats and the media lost their minds that Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from this case, basically saying, look, I'm a Supreme Court justice.
00:05:22.620This is something that has precedence over every single future president of the United States.
00:05:28.360You should not recuse himself only because he is smarter than the liberal justices and he is smarter than anything that the leftists send at him.
00:05:36.180No, he should not recuse himself for one second.
00:05:38.980And that's how he completely owned this lawyer there.
00:05:42.340I was joking on Twitter earlier that the Clarence Thomas really just committed murder in front of the entire nation.
00:05:49.540But it comes down to this simple question.
00:05:50.800We'll have Roger Stone joining us here soon.
00:06:51.320Nippy Bam Bam like Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
00:06:57.720All right, Jack Posobiec back here at Human Events Daily Live Washington, D.C.
00:07:01.780For 10 years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
00:07:07.780And when I say only, trust me, they're the only one.
00:07:10.700Glenn and the team have been great supporters of this show, which is why I'm proud to partner with them.
00:07:14.920Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks.
00:07:21.320Which means you get the same coverage that you've been accustomed to without funding the lab.
00:07:25.800When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, and our military veterans and first responder heroes.
00:07:34.660Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
00:07:38.860Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
00:07:41.680Their team will help you find the best plan for your needs.
00:07:43.760Just go to PatriotMobile.com slash POSO and get free activation when you use promo code POSO.
00:07:48.400Join me, make the switch today, PatriotMobile.com slash POSO.
00:07:54.880We are joined here by a veteran and iconic Republican strategist, Roger Stone.
00:08:00.560Roger, I'd love to get your thoughts on the president's hearing this morning, his legal team, and how everything shook out.
00:08:06.740Seems to have gone extraordinarily well, Jack.
00:08:10.300I mean, it's somewhat ironic that those who accuse us of being anti-democracy are trying to knock their opponent off the ballot so that we can't have an election.
00:08:21.720I can't think of anything less democratic than that.
00:08:26.200Their argument has always been flawed that because Trump engaged in insurrection, well, according to who, has no conviction for insurrection.
00:08:39.420He should therefore be ineligible to be on the ballot in the next election.
00:08:45.460I just came off a debate just minutes ago with a former congressman, Anthony Weiner, who said, well, the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about conviction.
00:08:56.860I said, yeah, but it's a subjective argument.
00:08:58.680So who then decides whether he has, in quote unquote, engaged in insurrection if he has no conviction for that?
00:09:08.720The other problem here is that the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically does not, based on previous Supreme Court decisions, regard the president and the vice president.
00:09:21.400It specifically regards officers of the United States, which the courts have held previously the president and vice president are not for technical reasons.
00:09:31.460And then there's a third argument that even if the first two were correct, that the Congress would have to have enacted some enabling legislation.
00:09:41.960This wasn't self-fulfilling or self-executing.
00:09:51.580The only reason it's in front of the court is because the Colorado Supreme Court is extraordinarily politicized.
00:10:00.280It was rejected at the lower court, surprisingly, but it was revived.
00:10:07.140The case was revived and reversed by Colorado's incredibly politicized Supreme Court, where every single justice is a Democrat.
00:10:17.160But even that said, there were two very strong and very articulate dissents from two of the Colorado justices.
00:10:24.660So it was ironic, Jack, the three justices who went to Ivy League colleges, they agreed with the argument that Trump should be knocked off the ballot.
00:10:33.220The two Democrat justices who both went to community colleges, they said no.
00:10:37.640And this is really interesting to me as well, Roger, that in numerous instances here, you had basic questions that were asked of the justices to this lawyer for, I would say, the Democrat lawyer in Colorado.
00:10:51.820When he came up on the back end, I thought the Republican, the appellate lawyer for President Trump was a, I think he did a fine job.
00:11:01.760I hope that we're going to be seeing more of him in some of these other cases, by the way, this Jonathan Mitchell.
00:11:05.760But the Democrat lawyer, I mean, just asking questions of the justices, really kind of impugning them, refusing to answer basic questions.
00:11:16.880And it doesn't surprise me, by the way, that Neil Gorsuch and others really took him to task.
00:11:23.060You know, this is a situation where when I served as a Navy Intel officer, if I had guys under me, if I had junior analysts and we were preparing them to train for a briefing of a, of a commander, of a captain, of any higher up, a flag officer, say it.
00:11:40.140And, you know, you really have to train them right away that you always have respect for their office.
00:11:45.740And you don't get to, you don't get to ask them questions.
00:11:48.520They ask you the questions and you must be respectful.
00:11:51.960This Murray character, he seemed incredibly disrespectful.
00:11:55.560And I really think at one point Gorsuch just absolutely took him to the whipping post.
00:12:00.260Well, it was the whole thing was a welcome change from roughly a week ago when Trump's lawyer, a fellow named Sauer, who has certainly an impressive pedigree on paper,
00:12:12.220I think had a major misstep before the appeals court in arguing on the question of presidential immunity.
00:12:21.960One minute and 58 seconds into his presentation, he was asked what was clearly a prescripted question as to whether, as president, if Trump had SEAL Team 6 go out and assassinate his political opponent,
00:12:37.120and then had SEAL Team 6 go out and assassinate every senator who then wanted to impeach Trump because of it, would Trump have full presidential immunity?
00:12:47.780First of all, every seasoned trial attorney I know says you don't answer hypothetical questions.
00:12:52.600But secondarily, even in this case, since none of those activities would have fallen within the purview of his responsibilities as president,
00:13:02.720the answer was probably no, there would be, that wouldn't happen, but even if it did, there would be no immunity.
00:13:09.600Now, the left has taken this faux pas, and they have really used it to try to characterize Trump's entire argument, trying to say, well, Trump is saying he can do anything he wants as president, would have full immunity.
00:13:25.420However, we talked about this, the implication, if the court rules against Trump, the implications for other past and future presidents is really extraordinary.
00:13:39.540In other words, that means that there would be no immunity.
00:13:42.960And therefore, as you pointed out, U.S. citizens hit with a drone strike or U.S. citizens illegally surveilled upon, like, oh, I don't know, Tucker Carlson, James Rosen.
00:13:54.360They would have substantial legal actions against former presidents or future presidents.
00:14:01.580Or I would even add to that list, by the way, how about spying on your own political opposition, as in the opposing candidate for your party?
00:14:11.080People forget, of course, that the origins of the Russiagate consequence all started with a FISA warrant that was illegally and improperly obtained on elements of the Trump campaign.
00:14:23.100And Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, others who were spied upon.
00:14:27.020And so the idea that someone could be held criminally liable, well, why couldn't some justice immediately come out and say, well, look, this was election interference, clearly from Barack Obama.
00:14:37.420By the way, you had Alito in there at one point insinuate.
00:14:40.380I don't think that actually I don't think this Murray understood what Alito was saying, but he said if there were a country that was an avowed enemy of the United States and the president released funding to that country, could that be considered an act of aiding and of aiding comfort to the enemy?
00:15:01.700Now, of course, anyone who's paying attention to the situation would know that he's talking about Iran and he's talking about the fact that Biden did release money to Iran immediately before these these Hamas attacks back in October of last year.
00:15:15.880But I don't he just glossed right past the entire argument.
00:15:21.920It would seem to me that if presidential immunity was stripped, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos would have a very serious legal action that they could bring.
00:15:30.800Today, they're prevented from doing so because, well, President Obama, who was president at the time, had immunity.
00:15:38.400Once again, there's the law, then there's the Trump exception.
00:15:44.260That seems the way this always worked.
00:15:45.960The law is for everybody else except for Donald Trump.
00:15:52.600Well, and I do think this also I agree with what you're saying, that we should view this in terms of telegraphing where the justice is.
00:15:59.680At least some of those will come down on the immunity argument.
00:16:03.520I think I think it stands without within reason to say that, of course, they are going to be granting cert to that case, to presidential immunity and bringing up this question of presidential immunity.
00:16:13.060And I think we probably can read between the lines because they're not really I don't think they're trying to be circum circuitous with their speech and saying that they do believe that a president.
00:16:22.840These these safeguards are there for a reason.
00:16:25.220These are basic checks and balances in our system.
00:16:27.760And it doesn't sound like, again, even Ketanji Brown, even Kagan, they don't want to open this thing up to an absolute free for all the way that the Democrats and their allies in the media.
00:16:39.600By the way, Andrew Weissman, your your best friend, is even out there saying that this could be a seven to two or even nine or ruling.
00:17:10.700I I'm growingly optimistic that the court's going to reach the correct decision on the question of ballot access.
00:17:18.380It was also ironically in some of the strangest and most unpredictable places, Massachusetts, Michigan, places where the courts are fairly liberal.
00:17:27.100This is going to those state Supreme Courts and it's been denied.
00:17:31.120So the people who are anti-democratic are, in fact, the Democrats.
00:17:37.400And they really just don't want to face Donald Trump at the ballot box.
00:17:43.420Try to eliminate him one way or another.
00:17:46.020Obviously, we know the other way they seek to eliminate him, which would be to try to convict him of some crime.
00:17:54.160But everything here, I think, as you know, relates to timetable.
00:17:59.220In other words, when CNN and The New York Times editorial page, both of them criticized Jack Smith for being in a hurry because it's clear that he wants to get to a criminal trial prior to Election Day.
00:18:11.660That's right, Roger. Hold that. Hold that thought, because I do think we have a quick break coming up.
00:18:16.800But I think this is this is crucial for everyone to understand the timetable.
00:18:21.380And by the way, just security, the lefts and Ben Wittes and all these, they understand that the timetable is not their friend.
00:18:28.280Stay tuned. More with the great Roger Stone coming up next.
00:18:30.480They talk about influences. These are influences and they're friends of mine.
00:20:00.720Today was a great day for the president, and I think that conservatives should be happy and celebrate your victories.
00:20:06.220Take your W's, as they say, and as the kids say online.
00:20:09.200But at the same time, I don't think this was a case that anybody was really losing sleep over.
00:20:15.180And that's not just because we're using my pillows every night.
00:20:18.820It's because that these were spurious arguments, and they've always been spurious arguments.
00:20:24.180But there will be other cases that come up, not just the presidential immunity case, but even the January 6th question indirect.
00:20:32.780And I don't believe that the judges, I would be shocked if the justices ruled on the question of insurrection in this case.
00:20:40.540It seems that there are many off ramps available to them.
00:20:43.800And so, Roger, as we look ahead, what are some of the things, just on the lawfare perspective here, that the president and his team should be watching for on the horizon?
00:20:53.940Well, as you know, Jack, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and a group of other august lawyers and law school professors filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court,
00:21:09.000in which they argued that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was in itself illegal because Mr. Smith had never had his confirmation,
00:21:21.300had never had his appointment confirmed by the U.S. Senate and had never been and was not at the time of his appointment a U.S. attorney,
00:21:30.780which they argue, absent a particular special counsel law that lays out criteria different than that, that his underlying appointment is illegal.
00:21:42.080Now, I'm very familiar with this argument.
00:21:44.920One of the witnesses in my case, or one of the would-be witnesses in my case, Andrew Miller, did not want to testify.
00:28:11.720The more heavy-handed they are in these cases, the more that the possibility that the conviction doesn't hurt him.
00:28:20.000So let's look at the Florida documents case.
00:28:22.600They're basically saying, we want to put Trump on trial for retention of documents, but we can't tell him or you or the public what those documents were.
00:28:37.020How can any American look at that and take it seriously?
00:28:40.660I mean, that will be seen as exactly what it is, a hit job.
00:28:45.260So the more heavy-handed, the more draconian they are in denying Trump his rights and denying all of his pretrial motions, which I guarantee you will certainly happen in D.C., I think the greater the chances are that he could actually be convicted.
00:29:02.040People see it as outrageous and political, and they vote for him anyway.
00:29:10.940It's a little too early to say that definitively that is what will happen, but I think that is a very real possibility.
00:29:20.800You know, and this is something that I think of as well, because when I look at the – and I remember the Ron DeSantis campaign, the late, great Ron DeSantis campaign.
00:29:29.180They pinned their entire hopes on the idea that if Donald Trump were convicted that voters would reel from him, they would recoil from him, they might embrace a sort of Trump-like type figure.
00:29:44.140They got the psychology of the American voter and really the psychology of Americans completely wrong.
00:29:49.220Their political instincts were, in fact, the opposite of what happened because it was a rally around the leader moment when originally was Alvin Bragg up in New York, a case that nobody even really seems to talk about anymore.
00:30:03.060And then down in Florida and then all the rest of them, and we end up with big Fannie Willis down in Fulton County.
00:30:12.360And we're coming up on a quick break, Roger, but the idea for me that one of these things is not already baked in.
00:30:20.620I think there's enough people out there who say, I don't like what the government's doing to Trump, or there are people who say, I don't like Trump and I want to get him no matter what it is.
00:30:29.660I don't think you're going to change anyone's opinion on Trump based on whether or not one of these cases come to fruition.
00:30:35.860I'm not saying that he shouldn't fight them, by the way, but I just don't think the political calculus is that high of a percentage.
00:30:42.780Now, again, when we're in some of these states that really, that really matters, we do, you know, every vote counts.
00:30:48.180It is a marginal race, but I don't think this is the key path to victory for the Democrats.
00:31:56.240Look, the heavy-handed tactics that were used against me are what brought my case and the outrageousness of it to the attention of Donald Trump.
00:32:06.040He saw through what they were doing to me because they had never allowed me to put on any defense at all.
00:32:11.460I will say this, though, Jack, and that is if the election is close, and it will be close,
00:32:16.580and if those on the left intend to try to steal it again, one way to explain the fact that they went into Election Day trailing in the polls,
00:32:26.820but there was some mysterious result, Joe Biden won half the swing states, would be saying,
00:32:31.400oh, well, it was the last-minute conviction of Donald Trump that moved the election.