Elections Legal Issues Politics Trump Video

The Swiss cheese legal arguments trying to keep Trump off of ballot

The legal argument for using the Fourteenth Amendment to keep President Trump off the ballot has more holes than Swiss cheese.

These lawsuits are a fringe theory put forward by deep partisans who want to make sure that they can defeat Trump before the American people have the right to decide whether or not they want him as president again.

It’s shameful what they are doing but it just shows you the dirty tactics that the Left is willing to engage in in order to keep power.

I was on Andrew Wilkow’s show to discuss:


Andrew Wilkow
Welcome to the program. I’m your host, Andrew Will. Okay, So far, the biggest name to drop out has dropped out. Take a look.

Mike Pence
I just couldn’t sit this one out. But the Bible tells us that there’s a time for every purpose under heaven. Traveling across the country over the past six months, I came here to say it’s become clear to me, this is not my time.

So after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today. Now I’m leaving this campaign, but let me promise you, I will never leave the fight for conservative values and I will never stop fighting to elect principled Republican leaders to every office in the land. So help me God.

Andrew Wilkow
Mike Pence is out. And just like Liz Cheney considering getting in, your safer bet is on a three-legged horse to win the Kentucky Derby. At this point, there is no one that’s going to take the MAGA base away from Donald Trump. That’s it. My first guest is a conservative political analyst, attorney, commentator and author of the book Right in the World. Gayle Trotter, thanks for joining us.

Gayle Trotter
Great to be with you, Andrew.

Okay. So today were the first hearings in the state of Colorado to effectively remove Donald Trump from the ballot. Come Thursday, it’s going to be the state of Minnesota. And this is all being done on the reading of the third section of the 14th Amendment. We put up Section three, real quick, just want to make sure everybody knows what we’re talking about here.

All right. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president. Notice they don’t say president or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state, having 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 (keyword) to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or giving aid or cover to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such a disability.

Now Gayle, we cannot divorce Section Five, which I want to put this up as well. So we’re all clear. Put up section five. The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Gayle, they passed the rebellion and insurrection statute known as U.S.C. 8 to 18 U.S.C. 2383. Nobody, including Trump, has been convicted on this. So how would they remove him from the ballot? And it clearly says Congress has the authority, not the states.

This entire theory is like Swiss cheese: it is completely full of holes.

When I think about these lawsuits, I think, are you kidding me? This is a fringe theory put forward by deep partisans who want to make sure that they can defeat Trump before the American people have the right to decide whether or not they want him as president again.

And as you know, the indictments have not stopped President Trump. This type of litigation to keep President Trump off of the ballot box is not going to work either. This is a fringe legal theory that the partisan hacks are advancing to deny the ability of the American people to decide who they want to elect.

It’s really shameful that they’re doing this. It’s their continuation of everything that they have tried to do to defeat what the American people have said that they want.

I think we’re going to see that this will NOT make it past the lower courts. But even if it does make it past the lower courts and goes up to the Supreme Court, it’s going to get smacked down because it is a ridiculously implausible legal theory that is untested.

Like you said, that was one hole. But there are many other holes to this legal theory which will assure that it is not successful in keeping who we think is the probable nominee off the Republican ballot.

We’ve heard from Andrew Weissmann and Lawrence Tribe that Section Three is self-enforcing. That’s impossible unless you divorce Section Five, which says Congress has the power to make appropriate legislation. They did. Four indictments, 91 counts, none of one of them, not one involves 18 U.S.C. 2383. Not a single J6 who are rotting in prison or anyone that’s been charged with any level of criminality has been charged under that statute.

So if there are no insurrectionists, how could there be an insurrection?

That’s so logical of you. I don’t understand how you can be so logical and oppose this completely transparent attempt to keep Donald Trump off the ballot box.

We’re looking at not just that issue, but also the question of, is the president even an officer under the definition of the statute? That one of the people who wrote this article trying to keep Donald Trump off the ballot previously in a blog post, said that the president was not an officer covered under this section of the 14th Amendment, and yet he has reversed himself, of course, when it’s convenient for him.

So these people who are advancing this really have no principles and they’re trying to shoehorn in what they want to accomplish through basically legal theory that is untested and is really just out there. So this is not going to work. But it is yet again, this lawfare trying to distract a Republican, the front running presidential Republican nominee from doing his campaign.

It just shows you the dirty tactics that the Left is willing to engage in in order to keep power.

I would love to know what the left-wing judicial view of this would be. I mean, to buttress this in section two, it says president, vice president or any civil officer, which distinguishes between civil officer and president of the United States. President and vice president is not mentioned in in the 14th Amendment. But again, I go back to it.

If you’re going to remove someone from the ballot for being an insurrectionist, but you haven’t charged them with insurrection, to say that Section three is self-enforcing against Section five Congress, the power to enforce this. They did with that appropriate legislation that no one has been charged under.

Do the Democrats really want to start this precedent?

Yes, they do, because they don’t want to give up power. But you made a really important point where no one has been charged with it. Certainly no one has been convicted of it.

So you’re thinking about who are you going to empower with the ability to make this determination? Is it going to be a lower court judge in Colorado? Is it going to be a lower court judge in Minnesota?

You hear of the left talking all the time about democracy and how “democracy dies in darkness.” And yet this attempt by the left is the most anti-democratic thing you can imagine.

To have a lower court judge in Colorado determine who could be a presidential nominee for the entire country. Essentially, it’s because if you’re able to do this per state, then you can just pick off state, pick off state. It is an extremely anti-democratic effort by the left.

It’s just frightening that they have not charged anyone with the crime they say disqualifies someone from the ballot. Right. I mean, we have a criminal statute. Nobody’s in violation of it. And they’re saying, well, who cares? We just want to say he’s an insurrectionist and that’s it. That’s all that matters. Yeah, you’re protecting democracy.

I got to leave it there. Gayle, thanks for joining us.

Great to be with you.

All right. Coming up in my argument, the Democrats told us that Trump was going to start World War Three. We’re on the verge of World War three. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump. That’s next.

Watch full episode