California Now Looks to Remove Trump From 2024 Ballot, Following Colorado 2023-12-22 15:35

Hey, welcome to Crossroads. In today's episode, we'll be talking about how California is looking to remove Donald Trump from its 2024 ballot following the footsteps of Colorado and maybe looking at some other ways of doing it. Also, Republicans are now considering removing Joe Biden from the 2024 ballot over the border crisis, a tit-for-tat type thing. Also, Jack Smith could be subpoenaed 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. First off, folks, California is now looking for a way to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. 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 U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether or not Trump can be included on the ballots. Again, that Supreme Court decision is going to be the one that ends this all or makes it so Trump can't run. Now, the Lieutenant Governor of California, Elena Kaulinakis, 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. Griswold, 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 ineligible for the California ballot for the same reasons described in Anderson. The Colorado decision can be the basis for a similar decision here in our state. The Constitution is clear. You must be 35 years old and not be an insurrectionist. Let me pause briefly on some of this. She's doing a phishing expedition in which she says, I urge you to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump 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 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 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 that's been 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 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. Anyways, 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 U.S. Supreme Court, now just briefly what's happening with Colorado, this whole thing. Colorado has given the U.S. Supreme Court until the 4th of next month to make its determination. Will it accept the case or will it not? If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up that case, 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 3 of the 14th Amendment, which essentially says that if a lieutenant, not president, by the way, it says that if an individual 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 the Supreme Court's got to look at, it doesn't necessarily apply to presidents. And this has been determined repeatedly in lower courts. We'll see if this is interpreted as being 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 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, 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 enlisting 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 Seymour 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? 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 trial on that. Trump was never found guilty on it. There was no legal determination coming out 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 Seymour 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 Seymour 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 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 make his case. There was very limited 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, so the district court allowed in writing that it was a procedure. He wrote that it's a procedural Frankenstein in terms of the way it was handled. He says, in my view, what transpired 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 what the Supreme Court says and, of course, the federal government. Now, the U.S. 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 3 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 in 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. 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, or 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 releasing exclusive interviews from Turning Point. We just got back, actually. Only on Epic TV. E-P-O-C-H-T-V dot com. Like the one I did with Patrick. That David of Valuetainment 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 approach is I like to bring people from all walks of life. It doesn't matter 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 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's worked for us for the last few years. We need debate. We need discourse. We need disagreements. We need arguments.