Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Provided SMOKING GUN Against Himself, Judge BLEW IT

Episode Date: November 19, 2023

A Colorado state court judge was so close to banning Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment as an “insurrectionist” against the US, but at the very last moment got hung up on what type of oath the president takes. Michael Popok of Legal AF breaks down why Judge Wallace was wrong and misinterpreted key portions of the constitution and ignored Trump’s own admission recently that he is just such a “federal officer” and what will happen next on appeal. Go to https://gutcleanseprotocol.com/LegalAF to watch Dr. Gundry’s informative video for FREE Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Michael Popok, legal AF. Oh, the judge in Colorado was so close to getting the analysis right to ban Donald Trump from the presidential ballot under the 14th Amendment because he engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the Constitution, but that at the last moment in her analysis after 102 pages, she got it wrong. I'm going to tell you why I believe that that analysis was wrong. Even though the big headline is Colorado judge finds that Donald Trump engaged an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution as prohibited by the 14th Amendment section three,

which happened after the Civil War in this country during the reconstruction period for where Lincoln wanted to find a way for states and former officers and federal officers to come back to the union, but only if they took loyalty tests to be loyal to the new reconstructed union. And coming out of that was the 14th Amendment section three, which provides very specifically who is or who is not disabled or disqualified from running from office again. And so the problem with the judge's analysis is she found insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution by Donald Trump. And she did so in a, in an amazing set of findings, some based on the Jan 6th committee report, others based

on information and evidence she heard in the courtroom over the two weeks in Colorado. But then we came down to does the 14th Amendment Section 3 even apply to the president. And she went through a different analysis and she got hung up on the oath of office that both house members senators take and the president takes because they're not identical. I'll concede that they're not identical. If you look at article six, the oath of office that's taken by members of Congress and article two, the oath of office taken by the president, they're slightly different in their relationship to the to the Constitution. And why is that important? Because if you, if the, look at the Article 14 analysis, Article 14, Section 3 says under that oath that no person shall be a senator, a representative meeting a House member, or an elector for president or vice president, or hold any office under the United States,

okay, who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, the same meaning the Constitution. The oath of office for the president is slightly different when you take it from the second amendment. It says, I swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the presidency and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect

and defend the Constitution. Okay, I get it. That's what it says. And if you read the ones for Congress, theirs is to support the Constitution, but isn't preserving protecting and defending the same thing as supporting? Isn't it the upper most extreme for the apex officer of the United States? He wouldn't just support the Constitution. I don't want a president that just supports the Constitution, I want one as the commander in chief to preserve protect and defend, right? Members of the House aren't commanders in chief. They don't take up weapons. They don't control a military. I want a president who preserves, protects and defends, but that's still the same as far as I'm concerned as support. And there's nothing in the jurisprudence,

in the case law that suggests that the oath of office is being slightly different, the president wearing the commander in chief hat to defend and protect and preserve the constitution. The last line of defense against that, right, that document and what it means for our country. And the regular old Senator and Congress were just having to, um, just having to, uh, support it means that, oh, well, therefore article 14 section three, which only says support must only be referring to people like senators and congressmen. It makes that argument, I'm sorry, judge Wallace makes no sense because senators and representatives are mentioned by name already. And so all you're left with is

federal officers. And how do I know that Donald Trump is a federal officer who supports the Constitution and took such an oath and therefore is subject to article 14th Amendment because he said that he was a federal officer just recently when he tried to take the case of E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation case out of state court and try to take it to federal court, he used the federal officer removal statute. And the judge there, even though he rejected the removal, acknowledged that the president is a federal officer under 28 USC 1442. So we have in recent history, judge Wallace, a position taken by Donald Trump that he should not be allowed to

countryvert now, right? He shouldn't be able to shape shift in front of you and say, well, I was, I was a federal officer for federal officer removal, but I'm not a federal officer for the 14th Amendment. I mean, that is ridiculous. And it's also I believe a fundamental misreading. And I think she did a great job on a hundred and two, a 102 pages over two weeks, but I have to falter on this analysis that led her to say, sorry, he is an insurrectionist and rebellious person. He did engage in that against the Constitution, but because he's the defender, preserver, and protector of the Constitution, I find the 14th Amendment is vague.

I can't figure it out about whether support is the same thing as preserve, protect, and defend. Look, this was the argument that I thought was ridiculous when it was raised by Donald Trump's brief, but this is the one that she latched onto to sort of punt the ball at the end, right at the moment where you think, okay, 102, 101 pages of analysis, going in the right direction, got it, insurrection, rebellion, all right, I'm with you, Jojo. It doesn't apply to the president because the oaths are different. Come on, come on. She doesn't even reference the fact because I guess it wasn't

raised there. And she could have taken judicial notice that Donald Trump declared himself to be a federal officer, right, which already gets you halfway there under the 14th Amendment analysis. Because if he's a federal officer, right, which already gets you halfway there under the 14th Amendment analysis. Because if he's a federal officer, then you just got to say, isn't the equivalency of preserve, protect, and defend the exact same thing as support? What is a support? That's the lower level.

He has to do even more. So now she's created a rebellious president exception to the 14th amendment. That is not, I mean, if you, if we were to exume Abe Lincoln or do a say on, say ask him, so, are you okay with a rebellious insurrection participant president running for office again under the insurrection act. I think you get a pretty quick answer. No, that's why we started to list. Now, I'm talking like Abe Lincoln as well. We started to list the officers and the house and the senators, but then we had a broad

provision that said, if you're anybody else who's a federal officer who's taken an oath concerning the Constitution of the United States, you're going to be unable to run for office unless Congress takes away that disability. And the reason that that was in there is because if you swore an oath to a state constitution, they were less concerned about that, right? This is reconstruction period in American history. This is the period of time where the North defeated the South and slavery was at, how long in the balance,

about where that would be allowed or not. And so that's what they thought that war over. So from 1866 to 1877, Lincoln and Post-Lincoln, they're trying to put the Union back together again, and they had a series of loyalty tests seven, Lincoln and Post Lincoln, they're trying to put the union back together again. And they had a series of loyalty tests and loyalty oaths that were required. Lots of bills. This is one.

This 14th Amendment is one of more than a dozen bills nationally that were proposed and or passed during that time period for loyalty tests to be enacted, to make sure that whoever was coming back through the Union front door, coming home, right, was a loyalist, and that was the only way to do it. This was the litmus test. This is another example of it. You know digestive issues can be caused by a potential toxin that's in all of the quote unquote

healthy foods that scientists have been telling us to eat with a misleading food pyramid for the longest time. And this potential toxin causes digestive issues according to Dr. Gundry, a world-renowned cardiologist. This is affecting millions of people nationwide. Warning signs include weight gain and fatigue and digestive discomfort, stiff joints and even skin problems. Well, Dr. Gundry explains these side effects are often mistaken for normal signs of aging

because digestive issues develop usually over a matter of years. And sometimes even decades, I can assure you that the damage is probably caused by these health foods and it's far from normal. The good news is you can easily help fix the problem from your own home. And it's very simple. You just have to know which foods are actually healthy and which contain this hidden potential toxin. So you can go find this yourself at gutclandsprotocol.com slash legal af. That's gutclandsprotocol.com slash legal af or just click on the link in the description below this video. Because after years of research, Dr. Gundry has decided to release an informative

video to the public free and uninterrupted showcasing exactly which foods you need to avoid. Go find that video at gutclandsprotocol.com slash legal AF and click on the link in the description. So I'm sorry because I liked a lot of her analysis until this point. But when she got down to, I can't figure out if preserved protect and defend is the same thing as support. What does she think it means? You know, well, they didn't list the president as as one of the people in there. Right. But they listed a catch-all, and even the judge in her own findings said that constitutional amendments

properly need to be broadly and liberally interpreted. She says that, she acknowledges it, but then she doesn't broadly and liberally interpret it to capture a rebellious insurrectionist former president. You know, all you gotta do is go back to what the framers of that, what Congress believed at that time and then run that test against Trump and see if it, see if it flies. I mean, she made some great findings.

I'm not totally upset with all the decisions because now the only issue left on appeal is going to be this narrow issue. She already found insurrection rebellion against the Constitution by Donald Trump. Okay. The only issue left is if 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to the president of the United States, right, or of somehow the oath difference between the six and the second amendment matter about what the type of both, what the type of relationship they have to the,

to the constitution. Again, is it any surprise that the president, commander, and chief is the one to preserve, protect, and defend? And everybody else is in a support position and supporting role. There's only one star of the show. Everybody else is a supporting actor

related to the constitution. I just don't get how she got upside down on that particular issue. So look, the other aspects that I think are interesting, particularly, is some of her findings. I mean, some of the findings are right on target. You know, if we go to, I'll read from some of them now, because they're just that important, especially as other courts around the country are considering Donald Trump and his relationship

to the union. Then paragraph 62, she credited a expert who said that Trump's relationship with his supporters over the years identified a pattern of calls for violence that his supporters responded to a call and response between Donald Trump who controlled his followers. I think that's a powerful finding. But then when you get down to 128 paragraph, she did it in paragraph format. Paragraph 128 of her order, she said, the court finds, we read it particularly,

the court finds that prior to the Jan 6th, 2021 rally, Trump knew that his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to stop the steel, including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the election. In fact, Trump did everything in his power. The judge went on to find to fuel that anger with claims he knew were false about having won the election and with claims he knew were false that Vice President Pence could hand him the election. She went on to find the more during a week-and-a-half trial. She said in paragraph 135 of her findings, despite knowing of the risk of violence, and

knowing that crowd members were angry and armed, Trump still attended the rally and directed the crowd to march to the Capitol. Right, and then she quotes from excerpts from his speech about, we will never give up, we will never concede, it doesn't happen, you don't concede when there's a theft involved and urging them to fight against Mike Pence and to pressure Mike Pence and that the Democrats caused an election fraud and that

they've got a fight to protect it, right? All these incendiary inciting words that he used during the speech, most of which were not even in the prepared speech. He added them on the fly, right? Paragraph 137 of her findings. Trump used the word fight or variations of it 20 times during the ellipse speech, which he added on his own paragraph. Let's go to paragraph 187. Apologize, but it's 102 page decision 187. The court holds. That's a finding that Trump's The court holds, that's a finding, that Trump's 417 video, right? When he put out that video, allegedly to try to quell the violence, actually endorse the actions of the mob and trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It did not condemn the mob, but instead sympathize with them and praise them.

It did, however, instruct the mob to go home on three occasions, emphasizing to the mob that this was an order to be followed. At 601, paragraph 189, Trump tweeted again, these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unseremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love and peace. Remember this day forever.

Paragraph 190, the court finds or holds that even after the attack, Trump's tweet justified violence by calling the attackers patriots and continue to perpetuate the falsehood that justified the attack in the first place. His alleged sacred landslide election victory in paragraph 192. The court finds that the 601 PM tweet is further proof of Trump's intent to disrupt the election on January 6th of 2021. And then finally in paragraph 241 in her conclusions of law, which I think got a lot of the headlines here, she says as follows, the court further concludes that the events on and around Jan 6th easily satisfy the definition of insurrection. Paragraph

242 thousands of individuals descended on the United States Capitol. Many of them were armed with weapons or had prepared for violence in other ways, such as bringing gas, mass, body, armor, tactical vests, and pepper spray. The attackers assaulted law enforcement officers, engaging them in hours of hand-to-hand combat and using weapons, such as tasers, batons, riot shields, flag poles, poles broken apart from metal barricades, and knives against them. And the mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose. The mob overran police lines outside the Capitol, broke into the Capitol through multiple entrances, and searched out members of Congress and the Vice President

who were still inside the Capitol building. Paragraph 244 of her findings, the mob's purpose was to prevent execution of the Constitution so that Trump remained the President, specifically the mob sought to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes as set out in the 12th Amendment and thereby prevent the peaceful transfer of power. That's where we are with Judge Wallace. So if I had read that to you first, you'd think, great, he's going to be banned from the ballot. In fact, the Secretary of State of Colorado was head scratch in herself. She said, I don't understand how the judge can make all of those findings.

I'll take whatever direction she tells me. I'll put them on the ballot, but I don't really get how he should can make all of those findings. I'll take whatever direction she tells me. I'll put them on the ballot. But I don't really get how she can make all of those findings. And at the very end, find a variance between two oaths and decide that the president was not supposed to be part of the of the insurrection and rebellion to qualify or in the 14th Amendment. I agree with you, Secretary of State of Colorado. And that's now going to be an issue for the Colorado Supreme Court. And then ultimately, the US Supreme Court is going to have to finally rule, hopefully well in advance of the November election, as the weather Donald Trump deserves to be on the

ballot or not, or whether the 14th Amendment applies, not just for him, but for future Donald Trump's or Donald Trump in the future. Suppose he wins a second term, he doesn't want to leave. What do we do then? Uh, or the like. So this law, this canon of body of law that's going to be developed is really, really important. Look, I get states are confused. Minnesota and Michigan punted the ball and said put Trump on the primary ballot under the 14th amendment.

We'll revisit it before the general election. But we also think it's a political question that has to go back to Congress. Okay. I don't agree with that analysis. And neither do a lot of major federalists, right wing scholars on the Constitution and former federal judges who are right wing judges who think Donald Trump, not only is the 14th amendment applied to the presidency, but Donald Trump is disqualified.

I'm in their camp. And I'm almost in the camp of Judge Wallace, except here at the very end, but I get that it's confusing. I know a lot of legal commentators have said, we've never done it before. So there's no process. We don't know what to do. So just put them on the ballot, maybe, but I'm not sure for the future. That's such a great idea.

Everything that's in the constitution that's self executing has to have a process. And if there isn't one that we can rely on, it has to be developed now. We can't continue to punt the ball and hope and close our eyes and hope it doesn't happen again. We have to have procedures. And so we got to get our act together here and our you know what together here through a system of government and justice that interprets the constitution all the way through the Supreme Court. We'll continue to report on the other places that are considering whether to put Donald Trump on the ballot or not through the 14th Amendment application.

Only one place might have touched network on their YouTube channel. You knew that. Follow me, Michael Popock, on Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. Eastern time, where I co-anchor the leading show, curated podcast on politics, law and justice, called, wait for it, legal a F. And then on hot takes like this one, about every day, if not every hour at that same intersection, we don't blow smoke, we don't blow sunshine. We just bring it to you straight with our collective legal experience in court rooms and court houses just like this So if you like what I'm doing, give me a thumbs up. It helps with the ratings really does and until my next hot day

Can tell my next legal a f This is Michael Pope-Pock reporting. Hey, might as mighty love this report Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram At might as touch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.