TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether former President Trump can be barred from reelection under the 14th Amendment. Trump's attorney contends that he is not an elected official or an officer of the United States, arguing that Section 3 applies only to those in office, not candidates. He warned that affirming the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove Trump from the ballot could disenfranchise millions of voters. Conversely, the plaintiff's attorney claims Trump disqualified himself by attempting to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power through insurrection. The court's decision will ultimately address Trump's eligibility in light of these allegations.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
If the court rules that someone who incited an insurrection to stay in office can remain on the ballot, what consequences will our country face? What if they decide he can stage a coup and then run again? The consequences will be that the voice of the people will be heard, and they get to choose their president. Also, on election night, when he wins, people will get to watch certain individuals cry on air. Thank you for your time.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The Maine secretary of state has prevented Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot due to a Supreme Court decision that allows states to block the former president from running in the election.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Some arguments about Section 3 are more persuasive than others, but proponents of the legal strategy admit it's a long shot. The Constitution has qualifications for holding office, like being a natural born citizen and being at least 35 years old. If someone gave aid to an insurrection or participated in one after swearing to uphold the Constitution, they can't be president. The question of who gets to decide is still open. Two conservative lawyers argue that state secretaries of state might have the authority to determine candidate eligibility, including whether someone is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Maine's Democratic secretary of state, Shena Bellos, is evaluating whether Trump is disqualified from the Maine ballot. If Shakira wanted to run for president, it wouldn't be allowed.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The Electoral Count Act dictates that if the Senate and House agree on how to count disputed electors, that agreement stands. If they disagree, one interpretation is that the governor's slate of electors is counted, which would likely favor Biden. Another interpretation is that both slates are discarded, potentially lowering the threshold to win and possibly leading to no candidate securing an Electoral College majority. The Supreme Court might intervene to interpret the Electoral Count Act if Congress cannot agree, but this is uncertain. A deadlock where Congress can't agree and the Supreme Court doesn't intervene could lead to electoral votes not being counted for an extended period. While unlikely (less than 1% chance per 538), if no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the House chooses the president by state delegation vote, and the Senate chooses the vice president by a simple majority. This scenario would likely disadvantage Democrats, as Republicans control a majority of state delegations.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Chief Justice Roberts anticipated potential issues regarding Trump's eligibility, particularly concerning the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which bars individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office. The Supreme Court ruled against efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado, emphasizing the chaos that would ensue if states could independently decide on his eligibility. The justices agreed that Congress would need to pass a new statute to enforce Section 3, which led to differing opinions among them. Looking ahead to January 6, 2025, there are concerns that if Democrats control the House, they may attempt to block Trump's certification as president, potentially leading to an emergency Supreme Court case. This situation could have been addressed earlier in March.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
This is about the accusation of election rigging against Donald Trump. The decision to remove him from the ballot is likely to be overturned by the US Supreme Court. The insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump's situation, as it was meant to prevent confederates from holding office after the Civil War. Trump has not been charged with insurrection, and removing him from the ballot violates his right to due process. Colorado officials have manipulated the clause for political reasons, interfering with the election process. This is seen as anti-democratic and equivalent to rigging the ballot box, potentially increasing support for Trump.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
If Trump wins, DOJ won't stop ongoing cases. Cases in Florida and DC could continue until January if Trump is reelected. Garland would still lead DOJ for a while after inauguration. Trump is using the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity to delay his sentencing in New York until September. Uncertain how things will unfold in the coming months.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In the decision, it was argued that Donald Trump participated in an insurrection. The consideration of whether he should be allowed on the ballot before being found guilty of the crime of insurrection was discussed. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was carefully reviewed, which states "engage" rather than "conviction." The events of January 6, 2021, were described as unprecedented and tragic, constituting an attack on the capital, government officials, and the rule of law. The weight of evidence reviewed indicated that it was indeed an insurrection, and Donald Trump was involved according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is being ignored. They suggest it will be up to the public on January 6, 2025, to tell "rampaging Trump mobs" that Trump is disqualified, potentially leading to civil war conditions. This is because the justices, who have few cases and ample resources, are allegedly unwilling to interpret the 14th Amendment. The speaker expresses support for Cherilyn's new center, presumably related to this issue.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump is calling for a rally with his supporters on January 19th, just before the inauguration. This raises questions about his intentions, especially since he may not be able to be sworn in due to the 14th Amendment, Section 3. He seems aware of this situation. However, this time, there are preparations in place to address his actions.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump is purportedly the most popular politician in America, and the side that claims to defend democracy should want to fight him at the ballot box. Three states have allegedly stated that Trump can't run because he's an insurrectionist, with Colorado being the first. His "pals" on the Supreme Court heard the Colorado case right away, treating it as an emergency. Despite this, Trump should be on the ballot because he is popular. People casting ballots should have knowledge of his trials.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In Denver, Colorado, a trial begins to determine if President Trump can be banned from the upcoming presidential election ballot. The trial is based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion can be barred. However, there is no legal basis for this case, and both sides acknowledge that. The trial is seen as a way to interfere with the election and is criticized as a frivolous lawsuit. It is argued that instead of pursuing these lawsuits, the focus should be on winning over the people to beat Trump. The claim is made that the establishment is unfairly going after Trump.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
If Donald Trump wins, there will be attempts to disqualify him through Congress, leading to civil unrest. On January 6, 2025, we must inform his supporters that he is disqualified, which may require bodyguards due to the tense situation. This unrest stems from a few justices who are reluctant to interpret the 14th Amendment. It's important to revive discussions around this amendment, as suggested by Sherilyn's new center and Professor Hasson's call for constitutional amendments. The implications of needing bodyguards and the potential for civil war conditions highlight the seriousness of the situation if Trump were to win.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
This situation is unprecedented. The president of the United States is accused of trying to steal the election. He claims it is election interference, but his scheme to use fake electors and steal the presidency is the real interference. There are doubts about the lawsuit, but it exists because of Trump's actions. He is disqualified because he attempted to steal the presidency from the American people.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Representative Moe Brooks plans to challenge the election results on January 6th, claiming the House and Senate have the authority to reject electoral college votes from states with flawed election systems. Brooks believes that Donald Trump won if only lawful votes were counted. Brooks asserts that an honest voting system is the bedrock of a republic. He states he will object to submissions from states with flawed systems and needs a senator to join him to force a vote. He urges the American people to contact their representatives and demand they co-sponsor objections to flawed electoral college vote totals, or risk losing their vote. Brooks has not spoken with Republican leaders Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell. He claims millions of illegal votes were cast, citing illegal aliens, non-citizens, and violations of article one section four of the United States constitution.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The Constitution can be easily undermined, as seen with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is being overlooked despite its clarity. The responsibility now falls on us to address this on January 6, 2025, and inform the Trump supporters that he is disqualified. This situation creates a tense atmosphere, requiring protection for everyone involved. The justices, who have limited cases and resources, seem unwilling to interpret the 14th Amendment's significance properly. It's encouraging that Sherlyn is establishing a new center to address these issues.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
If Democrats act like legal scholars, they will lose to Republicans' "guerrilla war" to make Trump president, even if Biden wins legitimately. This is a political, not legal, fight. Congress can take extraordinary, unprecedented actions to stop a coup. On January 3, Democrats could delay seating incoming senators to preserve their majority when the Senate votes to count electoral college votes. This would ensure they can thwart Republican efforts to overturn the will of the people. The Senate votes to seat incoming senators, theoretically. A simple majority of votes should be able to delay seating the incoming senators until after they deal with the county electoral college votes. In the House, the Speaker could order the Sergeant at Arms to remove Mike Pence and the Senate from the House chamber, arguing they can't constitutionally count electoral college votes. These actions would be challenged, but are necessary to counter Republicans overturning the constitutional order. It's about gaining the upper hand legally. We must shift from viewing this as an election to recognizing it as a coup. Members of Congress can organize mass civil disobedience to shut down the capital and delay votes.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified from the GOP primary ballot due to his involvement in the insurrection. This decision is significant as it marks the judicial system's involvement in determining a candidate's eligibility. The previous district judge's ruling was puzzling, but the Supreme Court clarified that the 14th amendment applies to the president as well. This decision may be appealed to the US Supreme Court, where the outcome is uncertain due to the conservative majority.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
A Democrat judge who donated to an anti-Trump political action committee is expected to rule against President Trump and disqualify him from the ballot in Colorado. The case will likely be expedited to the left-leaning Colorado Supreme Court, setting a precedent that could affect swing states like Michigan. Democrats may stall the process to delay it reaching the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court will have to take on the case and make a decision, as this is a significant issue that goes beyond Trump. These tactics by Democrats are seen as a threat to democracy and are described as Orwellian.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the possibility of removing Donald Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment. They mention that the mugshot of Trump has generated significant support and raised concerns among those who want to remove him. Legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment can be used independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment, or congressional legislation. Examples are given of individuals in New Mexico and New Hampshire who are working to remove Trump from the ballot. Lawsuits in Florida also aim to remove him. The speaker suggests that the Democrats may be trying to incite anger and unrest to delay the election and maintain power. They urge people to pressure their state election officials to keep Trump on the ballot.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if the speaker is trying to say that President Trump will still be president after January 20th. Speaker 1 responds that it depends on what happens on Wednesday and that's why they have the debate. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the states certify the election and Congress doesn't have the right to overturn it. Speaker 1 mentions the 12th Amendment and a statute from the 1800s that allows objections and certification in court. Speaker 0 brings up the Tilden Hayes race and how all states have certified their elections. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are referring to the statute that governs what Congress does on January 6th, allowing for debate and certification. They emphasize that this is their only opportunity to raise an objection. They also mention not having standing to file lawsuits.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
I verified Donald Trump's eligibility for the ballot, but three challenges were made by former Republican and Democratic state senators. I had to hold a hearing and make a decision within five days, as required by Maine law and the constitution. This is not a criminal matter, and the 14th Amendment's Section 3 does not mandate a conviction. It was a complex and close question, but I concluded that January 6, 2021 was not a close call.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
This ruling raises concerns about states having the power to decide who can run for president without due process. The Colorado court disqualified him based on the 14th Amendment, claiming he committed insurrection. However, section 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly states that it is Congress's responsibility to enforce it, not state courts. The Supreme Court is likely to strongly oppose any state's attempt to enforce section 5. The writers of the 14th Amendment, who were radical Lincoln Republicans, intended for Congress to have centralized power, not individual states like Alabama and Mississippi, to determine presidential eligibility.

The Megyn Kelly Show

New Fani Willis Witnesses, and the Power of Drudge, with Aronberg, Davis, Moody, and Weinstein
Guests: Aronberg, Davis, Moody, Weinstein
reSee.it Podcast Summary
Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing Super Tuesday and the upcoming 2024 election, emphasizing that President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are likely to be the nominees unless unforeseen circumstances arise. The real news, she notes, lies in ongoing court cases involving Trump, including updates on the Fanny Willis disqualification case and implications from a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado and potentially other states. Kelly introduces guests Mike Davis and Dave Aronberg to discuss the Supreme Court's unanimous decision, which states that states cannot disqualify candidates based on the 14th Amendment unless they have been convicted of insurrection. Davis explains that the ruling reinforces the need for a federal statute to disqualify someone for insurrection, which has not been applied to Trump. Aronberg adds that the ruling limits Congress's ability to act against Trump post-election, further solidifying his position. The conversation shifts to the legal maneuvers surrounding Trump's various trials, with Davis arguing that the Democrats are trying to expedite proceedings to interfere with Trump's campaign. They discuss the implications of potential trials occurring during the election season and how this could affect public perception of the judicial system. The discussion then moves to the Fanny Willis case, where two new witnesses have come forward, challenging the credibility of a previous witness, Terrence Bradley. These witnesses claim to have personal knowledge of the alleged affair between Willis and Nathan Wade, which could undermine the prosecution's case. Aronberg expresses skepticism about the impact of these new testimonies, while Davis argues that the case is fundamentally flawed and should be dismissed. Kelly wraps up the segment by teasing upcoming discussions about the influence of Matt Drudge in media, particularly regarding his role in breaking the Monica Lewinsky story, and how his influence has shifted over the years. The podcast "Finding Matt Drudge" is highlighted as a resource for exploring Drudge's enigmatic presence in journalism.
View Full Interactive Feed