The MeidasTouch Podcast - Top Prosecutor has FINAL WORD on Trump DISQUALIFICATION

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas interviews former top federal prosecutor Glen Kirschner on the remaining issues surrounding disqualification of Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment Section 3. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts:MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcastLegal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-afMissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trialThe PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcastThe Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassanMea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohenThe Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-showBurn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boatsMajority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdownOn Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellmanUncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncoveredCoalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane

Duration: 24m
Broadcast on: 27 Dec 2024
Audio Format: other

I'm joined by Glenn Kirschner, former top federal prosecutor, the host of Justice Matters. Glenn, I want to talk about this issue, disqualification of Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment Section 3. I've seen you do some videos of it. Brian Tyler Cohen do videos of it. I've bought videos of it. I've seen a lot of videos that have gone into this issue. And I want to really kind of flesh it out as well. You and I both seem to agree that the Supreme Court got it wrong when they required that there be some sort of federal legislation from Congress that is required in order for there to be disqualification, that the Supreme Court went beyond even the question that was posed about whether Donald Trump could be on the ballot in Colorado, where nine of the Supreme Court justices thought that Colorado did not have the right to disqualify Donald Trump. By the way, I want to get your take on it. I still agree. I disagree with those 9-0 judges there as well. The majority went even further and said that federal legislation is required to which

the three justices, Katanji Brown, Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan said, why are you shutting the door? They used that exact language, shutting the door to other areas of challenging Donald Trump through other federal means. And they said we're writing in protest of the majority opinion that said federal legislation is required. And they said that's not in the text of the 14th Amendment Section 3. In fact, 14th Amendment Section 3 talks about that you would need two-thirds of Congress to remove the disability. So why would you simply need a simple majority of Congress to disqualify, but two-thirds to remove the disability? It makes no sense. But let's just start with the premise of what the Supreme Court ruled. You saw Glenn the 30-minute video that I did. Was there any kind of flaws in my logic? Was there any kind of dis-info? There's some suggestions out there? Or at least my recitation of what it is that the Supreme Court said, if I was lecturing, here's what they said, did I get it right on what they said? Yeah, Ben, I mean, it wasn't even an opinion you were offering. You were quoting right from the Supreme Court majority opinion, the 5-4. It wasn't really 9-0 on the question that we are discussing. Namely, does Congress have to legislate in order to implement the disqualification clause? So it's my view that the Supreme Court got it wrong and uninformed. Why do I say wrong and uninformed? Because there's a bedrock principle in particularly appellate law. I argued criminal appeals in front of military appellate courts, in front of federal appellate courts, and in front of state and local appellate courts. There's a bedrock principle. You only saw the legal wood in front of you. You decide the issue that has been briefed by the parties, that has been argued in oral argument, and you don't begin to ruminate about things that the parties, the people who have the interest in the litigation, didn't have a chance to brief, to argue, to think about. And yet the Supreme Court said, first, sawing the legal wood in front of them, they said, we don't think the state of Colorado or any state, even after adjudicating Donald Trump an insurrectionist, we don't think that means a state has the authority to leave that person's name off a presidential primary ballot. And I don't know, maybe we part ways here, Ben, but I actually don't quibble with that. Why? Because section three of the 14th Amendment doesn't say, if you take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and thereafter engage in insurrection, your name may not appear on a state primary ballot. That's not what it says. It says you shall not hold office. You are disqualified. And the only way the disqualification, the disability can be removed is if Congress votes two thirds in both houses to remove the disability. That's what it says. I mean, look, I went to public schools in Jersey, but I have enough reading comprehension to understand what it says and what it doesn't say. That's where the Supreme Court should have stopped. But instead, they started ruminating. We often refer to Supreme Court precedent as the law of the land. This really feels more like the dicta of the land. And as I know your viewers know, dicta is like judicial ruminating and a thought experiment and answering questions that were not necessary to resolve the case. And even more importantly, had not been briefed and argued by the party. So these are uninformed opinions and rulings by the Supreme Court. But there's no getting around what they said, right? Well, let me let me back up. We have been trying to get around what they said. But I haven't seen a compelling argument for how we get around the fact that those five justices said, no, our interpretation of the Constitution means Congress has to legislate implementing legislation

Transcription truncated.