 American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Appichell, your host. And today's topic and title is Colorado Judge rules Trump guilty for January 6. We had once again history made, where a district court judge, Judge Sarah Wallace, has entertained the court case about whether or not Colorado will allow Donald Trump on the 2024 ballot for President of the United States. And she wrote an opine. The court concludes that Trump acted with specific intent to incite political violence and directed at the capital with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. She further added, Trump inaction during the violence of this endorsement of the violence of January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021. So there you have it. We have a judge that has in her court ruling and findings of fact that Donald Trump indeed was guilty of of insurrection. However, that didn't play out well for the actual ending of the ruling that Donald Trump, according to this judge, will still be allowed to have his name on the 2024 ballot. That is the topic for today. And with my guest to discuss this topic is my co-host, Jay Fidel, and our special esteemed guest, as always, Chuck Crumpton. Good morning, gentlemen. Morning. Jay to you first. This judge basically agreed with every point, every point along the way during this trial, to keep Donald Trump off the ballot until the 11th hour where she opined at the 14th Amendment, paragraph three, did not apply to the president of the United States, the office of president of the United States. Your read on this. I heard one interesting analysis of it is that she had a hearing. She had an evidentiary hearing about it and concluded. And I don't know whether she used the word insurrection or not. Do you remember if she did? Yes. I mean, it's in her opinion. Okay. So she found an insurrection. Engaged in insurrection. That's a quotation. That's very important. Okay. So that's a finding of fact after an evidentiary hearing. It's hard to turn that over on appeal. And the analysis I heard was that she did that in knowing that it would be an appeal, but trying to focus the appeal on the other point, the point on which she rejected the claim that he should be off the ballot, which was that he's not an officer of the United States, which that's a loser position. I'd really be interested in Chuck's remarks on this. But I guess the analysis was that she didn't think that would win on appeal. So if you have a finding of fact after an evidentiary hearing, which is directly not appealable, and then you have this cockamamie decision that he's not an officer of the United States, then the appellate court would have to go along with the application of Section 3. They'd have to reverse her on her finding that he's not an officer of the United States. It's weird. I don't know if, as I say, Mr. and Chuck's view of the matter, but why didn't she just say that he shouldn't be on the ballot? It's really a cockamamie argument to say the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States. That's ridiculous. But here we are. Well, I mean, basic part of the reason was that it was the office of civil or military under the United States. Well, okay, so Donald Trump doesn't wear a uniform, but as Commander-in-Chief, doesn't that de facto make him as Commander-in-Chief part of the military? What do you think, Jay? Well, he's an officer of the United States. Who could be more of an officer of the United States than the President of the United States? He's the Commander-in-Chief. That's an officer. He's the senior, biggest, best officer that we have in the country. I don't know why anybody could find that he's not an officer. So really, the question is what's going to happen here. There are other cases that will be other cases that will wind up in the Supreme Court. And the inclination of the majority of the Supreme Court is to protect Trump, protect conservatism, protect the MAGA Republicans. I don't know what they're going to do. I don't know how they're going to leave him on the ballot. And it is a federal question so that if he's not on the ballot in Colorado, then theoretically, he's not on the ballot anywhere. They can't leave it to 50 states to decide whether he should be on the ballot. Either he is disqualified under Section 3 or he isn't. It's a constitutional question. So I mean, it's remarkable to think that the English language may not apply for the Supreme Court. But if you read and write the English language, this section absolutely applies, especially after that finding effect. Chuck, on to you. Three points. I mean, everything Jay just said is right. If, for example, I were that judge and I recognize law as strategy, it's a very politicized strategy match now. I know where I am on the playing field. I know what's out there after me. I'm in Colorado. It's going to the Colorado appellate courts, the Colorado Supreme Court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court. That's going to take a while, probably not before the election, but maybe if they think they want to do some. So what do we know about appellate courts? Appellate courts do one thing and love one thing more than anything else. Reverse those lower judges. We're smarter than you. We have to prove we're smarter than you by reversing you. If we affirm you, it just means we agree that you were right. It doesn't show anything about our intelligence, our power, or our status. So they have to reverse because that's who they are. And because most of them are stale male and pale, old, white, and, you know, the rest of the follow wax. Okay. For people who are politically or personally uncomfortable with that, live with it. It's a reality. Second point, if you want to recognize that role and that pre-election of the appellate courts as constituted, predominantly old male and white, particularly the Supreme Court, whose five of the six right wing majority are male, Clarence Thomas would in Trump's language be a vinyl. The point is, if you want to let them do what they really want to do, give them the easiest possible way to do that. If she had found that the president is an officer and she knows they want to reverse her, they will find a way. And then he's off. She also found that when Trump took the oath to defend the Constitution, Article III says an oath to support the Constitution. She distinguished between those two. Exactly the same horsepucky, Lajig here. Can you delineate the difference? Sorry. Can you delineate the difference? Oh, it's not the point. The point is she's writing the points of law to be reversed on appeal because that's what they do. That's what they want to do. If they do reverse on appeal, then he's off the ballot. If they don't reverse on appeal, they have untenable legal positions that nobody is going to leave out there. Nobody is going to leave out there that the president is not an officer. The language of Article III says the electors of the president are officers. If the electors are officers, the president's an officer. Give me a break, right? If the employee is with GE, the boss is with GE. And the oath distinction, I mean that one is really ludicrous, but this judge knows that. She is smart enough to have written what in my view may be the most strategically brilliant legal opinion I have seen in many, many years. It invites and almost requires any of the appellate courts, Colorado appellate, Colorado Supreme or U.S. Supreme to reverse her findings of law, her rulings of law, but not her findings of fact. He engaged in insurrection. If that's stuck, then the only way out of it is the president's not an officer or his oath was not an oath. Is that going to fight three levels of appeal? Well, that's the analysis that I mentioned. And you know, I'm not really comfortable with that. If he's an officer, say so. What's the issue? Why do we have this kind of strained interpretation and support and defend? Are you kidding? Is there a difference? Because the courts are politicized, Jay. Well, that's true. And at the end of the day, this is going to get to the Supreme Court, which is a majority politicized. And I can't imagine, frankly, I mean, we'll see. We'll all see, although Tim's point is chilling that it may not happen by the time of the election. And this is really, really, really, really chilling. But let's assume it does happen by the election. They're going to be looking for something to turn over really hard, because this is not just your ordinary matter of law or policy. This is who the next president of the United States might be. This is their buddy, Trump, getting back into office, the guy who appointed a number of them. And so they're going to be looking hard. So it doesn't matter what comes up. It will come up to them. And Clarence Thomas is not going to vote against Trump. And so who knows, man? Maybe they'll say that an officer is not an officer. Maybe they'll say support is not defend. I mean, what are you going to do about it? There's nothing you can do about it. And finally, let me add one thought that just occurred to me, that there are situations where an appellate court can reverse a finding of fact by a trial of fact. There was insufficient evidence. Something was wrong in the procedure. Remanded. Remanded. So it's well after the election. We need further further hearings on this question of fact. So there's a place for an attack there too. And shockingly the only place, because there's a fourth point that we haven't talked about that that's really critical, is the Minnesota court ruled in the Trump ballot case. He's not disqualified because it's only the primary. He's not an officer. It says Article 3 talks about holding office, not running for office, holding office. If he wins the primary, he's still got to win the general to hold office. So according to the Minnesota court analysis, only if he wins the general election, do you then finally have a case right for adjudication as to whether he can hold the office of president? You know, a right thinking person in the street is going to see that the way I do. That's a crock. You know, if he can't hold the office, why let him run? Why put him on the ballot and waste that time? You know, that's crazy policy. And it's not to Minnesota's credit. In fact, it's not to the country's credit that we're having this conversation at all. Section 3 plainly applies in the English language. What are you going to interpret in some of the language? What are you going to do? We have this way of contorting what is so obvious. And the man on the street is going to say, what's going on over there? And he can read it. It's only, what, 150 words? What's going on? What's wrong with these people? You know, I went to school. I can read it. And why can't they read it with all their fancy education? And their power, as you said. So there's a matter of public confidence here, is what I'm saying. How can you have public confidence in a decision by the Supreme Court that allows him to run? Okay. So Jay, this is the first time I can remember. I just really completely disagree with you because you're talking about the rule of law correctly applied, rationally applied, logically applied, linguistically, soundly applied. Yeah, we don't have that. Roe v. Wade is gone because we don't have that. The EPA protection against climate change and emissions is gone because we don't have that. The protection of LGBTQ people against being discriminated against by retail vendors is gone because we don't have that. Voting rights protections are gone because we don't have the rule of law. We don't have logical, reasonable, linguistically sound. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm only saying that for a judicial system to work, it has to have public confidence. And in all the examples you gave us now, it's true. They are not good policy. They're not good law, bad law, you know, all around. And so what I'm saying is the man in the street, the rational man in the street, a woman in the street, has got to conclude, just as you say, that we don't have the rule of law anymore, that they cannot have confidence in our courts, especially our Supreme Court, which sort of bleeds down to all the other courts. And so what I'm saying is the system is jeopardized because there cannot be, there will not be, there is not public confidence in the judiciary, the federal and ultimately the state. So the country is on the slide here. If we can't, if we cannot assume that the Supreme Court can read at the third grade level. You're exactly right. And one quick point is the most important thing about what you just said is if that man on the street with some capability of rational thought and character and conscience inside that confidential voting booth exercises that rational thought, that character, that conscience, what happened in 2020, what happened in 2022, what happened in 2023, could happen again. Trump could lose again. Well, I want to address that for a minute. We're looking, we're looking with laser focus on section three of the 14th amendment. But I think you have to see this whole effort to deny section three as part of a much larger, may I use the term conspiracy by the Republicans, especially the Maggard Republicans. It's not only this issue. It's the issue of the voting rights. It's the issue of taking action against candidates of using the citizens united approach to knock off good candidates. I mean, our whole voting system is screwed up. So if you tell me, Chuck, okay, that what happens in the voting booth counts anymore. I'm afraid that issue is up for grabs also. It's not at all clear that what happens in voting booth is what determines the future of the country or the election. You are absolutely right. And what's even more important about what you just said is that that being the case with the rule of law having been removed, the Republicans would love to get rid of not just Article 3, the whole 14th amendment. The MAGA GOP would love to simply erase it from existence. They don't want civil rights. They don't want voting rights. They don't want LGBTQ rights. They don't want women to have reproductive decision making rights. They don't want anybody other than white people to have college admission or education rights or health care rights. One more point, one more point, Chuck. And that is I got an email today from Common Cause and Common Cause has a number of issues. But the the issue that was in today's email was Article 5 of the Constitution, which allows a what do they call it a constitutional convention of states. And we are six states away. That means 54 states have already been compromised to agree to this Article 5 Constitutional Convention. And it's a Republican initiative. It's not a Democrat initiative. It's not a liberal initiative. It's an initiative to do exactly what you were saying a minute ago. Knock off all the civil rights. Knock off all the things we've assumed all these years of this democracy. Change this place to a non-democracy by virtue of changing the Constitution. And Common Cause is really worried about that. And so am I. And that's part of the conspiracy we're talking about. So the Section 3 is only one part of the conspiracy. There are three or four or five other things happening. And the Republicans are working hard on all of them. And you're right. And the corollary to that is that as Trump has announced and DeSantis and some of the others are threatening, if they win, they will eliminate this member and get rid of the Department of Education, the IRS, anything and everything that gets in the way of wealth and power doing exactly what it wants, no matter what effect it has on minorities, on women, on educated people, on liberals, for crime and his sake, on the poor. Okay. I like that. Okay. I guess our show is over, Jim. I'd like to get in one question if possible. And here it is. Thank you, gentlemen. No, actually, it was a very good discussion and a good debate. And I liked it. But Chuck, tomorrow's Thanksgiving. I'm going to guess, maybe it's just a wild guess, but I'm going to guess that somewhere in some tables of America, the topic of Donald Trump will come up. The question is this, to what degree or significance is it that a judge has ruled Donald Trump guilty, based on the findings of fact, guilty of insurrection? What impact will that have at the tables of America tomorrow? Or if any, it might call for some Pepto-Bismol over on the magoside of the table. But other than that, I mean, they're still going to eat what they ate. They're still going to drink what they drink. They're still going to say what they say. They're still going to think what they think. That's for me. Now, I told my wife I was updating my Uber card. And if that kind of conversation goes south at the table, either on domestic politics or international politics, I'm pressing the Uber button. I'm out of there. Well, I wanted an answer by Gospel Gully. I got one. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay, absent the Thanksgiving Day table. Jay, to what significance is it that a judge has ruled for the first time ever in the history of the United States, a judge has ruled a president of the United States guilty of insurrection? It hasn't happened yet. It's not included in those other cases. So good for this judge to make the hearing and finding a fact and lay that out on the judicial table. But what does it mean at the Thanksgiving table? Gee, I don't know. I think there are people at the Thanksgiving table, a lot of Thanksgiving tables that would dig deep and try to find an argument against that conclusion. I'm not kidding. There's a lot of mega people in the world. I watched a lot of YouTube and I saw a guy who was out talking to Trumpers. And it was really interesting. He was asking questions like that. You know, was Trump responsible for the insurrection whatnot? And people were so ignorant. I mean, one guy didn't know who the current president was. He thought it was Barack Obama, which is some misinformation bomb that Trump intentionally or unintentionally dropped. A few weeks ago. But what I'm saying is I think people will come up with the most absurd arguments against the application of section three, even at the Thanksgiving table. And I'm not saying that you have to bring your playbook with you and have citations or anything. I'm just saying that that makes a very difficult Thanksgiving. And by the way, before we get off that Thanksgiving topic, there's a fair chance, even a greater chance, that we'll have an argument about Israel and Gaza and the Palestinians at that Thanksgiving table. So I got to keep my phone at the ready in case I have to push that button. But I think, really, I think the Trumpers have their own playbook and they have these arguments lined up and they're completely ignorant about it. And they will make an argument of some kind. And right down in the ad hominem, oh, you're just saying that because you're a dynamo liberal. You've got some kind of brain problem that you even suggest that Trump should be permitted to run. Regarding election fraud, there were over 60 court cases, some of them went to the Supreme Court. And out of 60, 59 cases upheld the fact that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. Yet, for whatever reason, many Americans seemed to discount 59 out of 60. And the 60, the one case that was decided in Trump's favor was the fact that one polling place had paper taped on the windows. And so that wasn't the correct thing to do. And so paper had to be taken down or should have been taken down. So, but what does it say that 59 court cases basically saying there's no merit or no evidence regarding election fraud? Yet, that doesn't seem to work its way into the conversation with the MAGA GOP or many in the GOP. There you go, Jim, there you go, being rational again. You know, you are making this fantastic assumption that all the people at the table, including the Trumpers, are rational. They're not rational. And you can tell them about those 60 cases and they blow it off in one way or the other, because the conversation, at least from their end, isn't rational. Okay, well, goes to the question. What do we do about those who are willing to ignore the rule of law and to say it's our ball and we're going to run it down the field as we see pleased? How should the American public, how should the government, how should the judicial system deal with people that are completely in an anarchy way, ignore the rule of law and court decisions? Are you asking me or Chuck? Let's go to Chuck on that. We start with the recognition in response to your prior question. If you have Trump or any part of the MAGA GOP at the table, the only thing you can say for sure is you've got one more than one Turkey there. But the real answer to your question is strategic and it's very important. All those who now understand that they are being targeted for destruction, not just oppression, actual destruction, higher education, LGBTQ, women, minorities, the disabled, the poor, long list. All of them need to unify. They need to ally. They need to form the solidarity that is the only effective countermeasure to the oppression of the wealth and power. We did it in the 60s and 70s. We made progress in civil rights. We made progress toward peace. And the U.S. pullout was caused by that solidarity of not just students, but people generally. All right. Let me just take it one step further then. I mean, if we have a certain percentage of this country's population to ignore 59 court cases, to ignore this judge's ruling that Trump was guilty of insurrection, what makes us think that for one second they're going to accept the 2024 election results if Joe Biden wins? Thank you. That's absolutely true. And it's something that we've talked about before. You know, the Trump playbook includes denying the election if it runs against you. So I think, you know, to answer your previous question, the trek address, there are theoretical options. We have to see this as a five-alarm fire. We all have to get together and deal with it in every way we can, you know? I mean, like you say, what are you doing? What are you doing to save the country, Joe? He says, well, I sent $20 to my favorite Democrat candidate. That's not it. How about $2,000? How about $20,000? It's a fire alarm, a five-star fire alarm. And we all have to get there. Everybody who wants to save the country has to do something. Get on a group, become part of some kind of group, and give a lot of money and a raid in the streets. But I want to tell you, I don't think that any of that's going to work. Ready? Are you ready? Why? Because we are so polarized over other issues, like Israel and the Palestinians and Hamas and all that, that we're in the street by hundreds of thousands. And the liberals are, in my view, kind of squashy these days. And so what happens is you get a confusion as to what true liberalism is. So while they're arguing about Israel and Hamas and the Palestinians, there is no oxygen left to argue about the election in Trump. We're cross-cutting it this way and that way. Nobody knows which way and there's no leader. So I go back to Joe Biden, nice guy. I think we can all agree on that. But he's not the one to lead us out of the swamp here. He's just not strong enough, and he's not that much of a leader in terms of the strength of his rhetoric and so forth. What he really needs to do is step aside and let someone else run who is stronger and let that person galvanize the country. Okay, we've run out of time, but my last question to comment is, Jay, to your point about liberalism, I guess my question is, since when is it a liberal concept to preserve our democracy and the rule of law? I think that's a concept that both Republicans and Democrats and independents all should get their arms around. But for whatever reason, we don't seem to be seeing it in this current time. Am I wrong on that, Chuck? No, you're correct on it, but it's not the question they're asking themselves, because the question they're asking themselves is, what gets me the most? You have to remember there's zero-sum people. Everything that diminishes everyone else enhances and increases and augments them, and that is their way and their view of life. If they tear down democracy to do that, but it gets them what they want, they're entitled to it. What, a fatter 401k? I mean, don't get it. What are they going to gain other than the 1% making out like bandits? What does the common man gain by tearing down a system that protects their rights? There you go again, Tim, assuming that the common man is rational. I do assume, but you're right. Chuck? No, Jay's exactly right. They do not because they know they don't have any ability or power to exert that zero-sum power and influence that the 1% do. Through the pushing of Trump and the MAGA GOP, they identify themselves with that 1% so that if the 1% gets that, they say, that's our side, our side 1%. They don't get squat. In fact, they get screwed, but Jay's point is spot on. They have chosen to identify themselves with the things that actually benefit the people who profit at their expense. All right. Great answers, both of you. We're over time, but very quickly, last thoughts or comments on this topic. Jay, to you. We spotted this, Tim, Chuck, years ago, right after the election of 2020 anyway. We spotted this section 3 of the 14th Amendment. We assumed that it is very clear that he can't run. He can't serve. He can't be president. That's what it says. Then we wondered, I don't know if you remember, we wondered why the media wasn't picking this up, why there were no organizations going to court and trying to get a confirmation of what it says in English. It was a hiatus for what? A couple of years at least, and now only now this comes up. I find it really extraordinary that the media hasn't pounded on this and that the organizations that might have taken it to court haven't taken it to court until now. What we really need is a full-throated effort to make it clear that at least the thinking public can read English. On the other hand, I have to say that with the judiciary being in the condition it is, especially Supreme Court, I'm not confident. All right. Thank you, Jay. Chuck, you get the final and last words today. Yeah, I think Jay's point is a really good one. People need to understand this is a 25 alarm fire. Not just democracy is going down, not just the Democratic Party or liberals or whatever you want to call that is going down. What's going down are the institutions and the values on which we depend for the quality and value of our lives and our connections with each other, our ability to access and obtain equal benefits or any benefits from education, from healthcare, from housing, from transportation, from the environment. That's what's at risk here. We need to understand if that doesn't drive people to solidarity, you know, it just came back from three and a half weeks mostly in Vienna, it's a wonderful place to retire. That's a society that views and treats people the way they deserve for the most part. We do not. Until we do, we are going downhill. You're here. I say amen to Chuck. Yeah. Good gentleman. Thank you so much for a thoughtful discussion. Won't you join us next week for American Issues Take One? I'm Tim Apacella, your host. And until then, Aloha.