reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 introduces a moment to hear what the crowd thinks, noting skepticism about whether there will be opportunity to see it. Speaker 1 says they don’t know who’s whispering to the speaker, likening it to Grima Wormtongue, and asserts that half the people from their movement aren’t on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team. They say: “We aren’t neocons. We aren’t war hawks. We want America first. And if you make me choose between America first and MAGA, it’s America first all day. That’s what MAGA was supposed to be. You were just the best vessel for it, bro. Don’t get it twisted.” Speaker 2 contends that despite Trump’s flaws, including insider trading, they’re glad he’s differentiating and saying “you’re not with me because I’m not with you.” They reject being associated with someone they describe as a “cool corrupt kid” and a “Jeffrey Epstein class table.” They claim Trump “wasn’t loyal to his original mission. He wasn’t loyal to America. He became a creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that all “his never troubled enemies are now the courtiers with the madness of King Lear” telling him the lies they want to hear, and declare they are not one of those people. Speaker 3 argues that this proves multiple things, including that “the first thing, he shouldn’t be in office anymore. Implement the twenty fifth.” They say Trump isn’t loyal to this country or to anybody except “that little country in the Middle East.” They note it’s as if he does what he’s told, and compare him unfavorably to JFK for telling that country no. They ask, “How can you call them losers when you lose to Bibi Netanyahu in Israel every single day? When’s the last time you told them no to anything?” Speaker 0 shifts to a personal jab, saying Brigitte Macron is far more beautiful than Candace Owens, and asserts he’s been blind across the Internet. They reference reactions on Truth Social, noting “they’ve turned on you.” They catalog some responses: “You are way out of line.” They remind that many were once day ones, including Alex Jones, who had Trump on his show when “no media company would have you on.” They summarize: people are telling Trump to take a step back and “get back to America first.” Others say, “You are just going against everyone that fought for him to win just because of the Epstein files and being at war with Iran for Israel.” They quote: “We didn’t leave MAGA. MAGA left them. Clearly, you are insane. Time to resign, Donald or face the twenty fifth. You are mentally and emotionally unfit to be POTUS.” Additional insults follow: “You are so childish. Clearly, the truth has triggered you being one of your biggest supporters. I am done with you and your lies.” They claim Trump bent the knee to a monster, leaving a mess in the country, and, finally, describe a recurring social media pattern: “this was the most brutal and sadly a recurring response all across social media.” Speaker 0 adds that a tweet about Charlie suggested he would be on a list if they hadn’t killed him, asserting that “there is no truth and there is no loyalty within you.”

Speaker 1 defends the use of the Alien Enemies Act by stating that the U.S. is currently at war. They claim Biden allowed millions of people, many of whom are criminals, to enter the country, characterizing this as an invasion. Speaker 1 alleges that other nations emptied their jails into the United States, sending murderers, drug dealers, drug lords, and people from mental institutions. They reiterate that this situation constitutes an invasion and, therefore, a state of war.

The speaker accuses the Biden family of receiving over $20 million from foreign countries while Joe Biden was vice president. They claim that Biden is compromised, bribed, and blackmailed, making him a Manchurian candidate. The speaker alleges that Biden allowed other countries, particularly China, to take advantage of the United States. They criticize Biden for shutting down initiatives targeting Chinese spies, not holding China accountable for COVID-19, and neglecting threats from China and Russia. The speaker asserts that Biden's corruption poses a significant national security threat and suggests that his actions could lead to World War 3. They also criticize the appointment of a special counsel by the Biden DOJ, calling it a cover-up. The speaker promises to appoint a real special counsel if reelected to investigate alleged crimes committed by the Biden family.

The speaker criticizes the indictment against Trump, suggesting that if the bar is set this low, then prosecutors like Smith and Garland should expect similar treatment. The indictment claims that Trump conspired to interfere with the presidential election process. The speaker argues that using the same logic, one could argue that Biden prosecutors are conspiring against the 2024 presidential election.

The speaker expresses concern about the erosion of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, urging action on January 6, 2025 to prevent Trump's disqualification. They criticize Supreme Court justices for not interpreting the amendment properly, leading to potential civil unrest. The speaker praises Sherlyn for establishing a new center to address these issues.

The interviewer questions the speaker about President Biden's mental state, referencing claims that Biden's mental faculties have diminished. The speaker avoids directly addressing Biden's condition, stating Biden has the judgment and experience to make important decisions. The interviewer brings up George Clooney's observation that Biden is not the same as he was on the debate stage. The speaker reiterates that Joe Biden is not on the ballot, but Donald Trump is. The speaker claims the American people have concerns about Donald Trump and that leaders of the national security community have spoken out, saying he is unfit and dangerous and should never be president again. The speaker notes that even Trump's former vice president feels this way.

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.

The speaker discusses a lawsuit filed by their organization, arguing that it is necessary for the future of democracy. They counter the argument that not letting voters have their say goes against democracy by pointing out that in 2020, voters had the opportunity to choose Donald Trump as president, but he refused to accept the result and incited a violent insurrection. They explain that the provision in the 14th Amendment was included in the constitution to defend the republic from such attacks on democracy. The speaker also mentions the qualifications to be president, including not having engaged in insurrection.

Speaker 0 introduces the scene and prepares to expose the crowd’s current view of the person being addressed. Speaker 1 asserts that someone is being fed wrong information, likening the situation to Grima Wormtongue. He says half of the people he grew up with in this movement are not on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team, insisting they are not neocons or war hawks. He emphasizes America first over MAGA and states that America first is what MAGA was supposed to be, and that the addressed person is merely the vessel for it. Speaker 2 acknowledges serious flaws in the addressed figure, including insider trading, and expresses relief that the speaker is differentiating themselves. They say they do not want to be associated with the addressed person, describing him as a “sinking, burning ship” who was not loyal to his original mission or to America. They claim he has become a “creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” with enemies now serving as courtiers who lie and flatter him to hear what he wants. They state they are not among those people. Speaker 3 argues that the addressed person should not be in office any longer, advocating for the twenty-fifth amendment, saying he is not loyal to this country or to anybody except for “that little country in the Middle East.” They suggest the last president to tell that country no was JFK, and compare the addressed person’s actions to those of JFK’s era, asking how he can call others losers when he loses to Netanyahu “every single day” and questioning when he last told them no. Speaker 0 notes that Brigitte Macron is said to be more beautiful than Candace Owens, remarking that the claim is widely circulated online and across the political spectrum. They remark that the message was a “basket of deplorables” moment and that even on Truth Social, the addressed person’s platform, people have turned against him. They reference several responses: a call to step back and reassess who is whispering in the addressed person’s ear and to return to America first; a claim that MAGA left them; accusations that the person is insane and should resign or face the twenty-fifth; charges of mental and emotional unfitness for POTUS; descriptions of the person as childish; and a suggestion that truth has triggered him among his strongest supporters. The aggregate social-media reactions cited include: someone criticizing him for siding with Iran and Israel, claims of “you are going against everyone that fought for him to win,” and statements that “Take a look at this tweet about Charlie,” where people suggested Charlie would be on a harmful list if he hadn’t been killed. The underlying implication is that there is no truth or loyalty within the addressed person. Overall, the dialogue frames a divide between factions who believe in core America-first principles, criticisms of loyalty and allegiance, concerns about influence and corruption, and a climate of hostile public reaction and rumor.

Speaker 1 believes Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump. Biden allegedly used federal agencies to censor political speech, including the speaker's, shortly after taking office. This action is seen as unprecedented and dangerous for democracy. The speaker argues that questioning election results is not as big of a threat as a president using their power to control social media platforms.

According to Speaker 0, Article Two of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, meaning the President defines the executive branch. Speaker 0 believes the proposed amendment violates the separation of powers and Article Two because it implies a federal court could define or limit the duties of individuals within the President's executive office. Speaker 1 asks if the bill codifies Article Two to remind the court of its limitations, and if the amendment would undo that. Speaker 0 confirms this interpretation. Speaker 1 suggests that without such a bill, a president would have to answer claims in multiple places across 50 states, potentially using nonofficial funds. Speaker 0 agrees, citing the use of courts for "nefarious purposes" since 2017 and the weaponization of "lawfare" against President Trump, arguing the president alone defines the duties of personnel within the executive office.

The speakers are debating the former president's statements about an "enemy within." One speaker claims the former president suggested turning the American military on the American people. A clip is played of the former president responding to accusations of threatening people, stating he is not threatening anyone, but that "they" are the ones doing the threatening through "phony investigations" and "weaponization of government." The other speaker objects, asserting the clip does not reflect the former president's repeated statements about the American people being the "enemy within." This speaker claims the former president has talked about turning the American military on the American people, going after peaceful protestors, and locking up those who disagree with him, which they argue is unacceptable in a democracy.

The speaker discusses the disappearing importance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, urging action on January 6, 2025 to disqualify Trump. They criticize the Supreme Court justices for not interpreting the amendment, leading to potential civil war. They express gratitude for Sherilyn's new center to address these issues.

Speaker 1 initially said "no more Trump" due to his January 6th conduct, but now says "yes" to Trump. Speaker 1 states that Biden-Harris policies are an existential threat to the country and its allies. Speaker 1 believes there are now many attacks on democracy that eclipse January 6th.

The speaker claims that someone received 14,000,000 votes but was thrown out of office. The speaker states this action is a threat to democracy. The speaker also claims that this person hates the woman who ran instead of him and cannot stand her.

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.

I understand the speaker's point that they are aware of the uniqueness of their decision. They mention that no previous secretary of state has ever used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prevent a presidential candidate from accessing the ballot. However, they also note that no presidential candidate has ever participated in an insurrection and been disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Some Democrats in Congress are pushing legislation called the "Disgrace Act," sponsored by Representative Benny Thompson, that would strip President Trump of his Secret Service protection. The claim is that Democrats argue a "disgraced convicted felon" who may be imprisoned shouldn't have the same protections as other former presidents. This is allegedly a calculated plan to dehumanize Trump after branding him a felon. The speaker asserts that Democrats are willing to jeopardize Trump's life to remove the possibility of him being re-elected. They believe Democrats are terrified of losing power and will do anything to stop people from voting for Trump.

The speaker claims Joe Biden is mentally incompetent and not running the country. They state that a president is elected by the whole American people, unlike judges or members of congress. According to the vesting clause, the executive power is vested in the president. The speaker believes the existential threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime tenured civil servants who defy the will of the American people. They allege these bureaucrats believe they answer to no one and can do whatever they want without consequence, setting their own agenda regardless of how Americans vote. The speaker asserts that President Trump is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which represent the will of the whole American people.

Speaker 0: Question about the danger of a Trump presidency if reelected. Speaker 1: I think he poses a a near existential threat to the rule of law. He will do everything he can in a new term to try to tear down the institutions that he sees as threats and dismantle them and the people who occupy them, the apolitical people who occupy them. So there is a lot on the ballot in 2024 if he's a candidate, but the rule of law, in my view, is at the very top of the list. I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fucking diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical.

Trump is calling for Biden to be removed from the ballot, which is seen as a dangerous move by the speakers. They argue that there have been no convictions or illegal actions to justify such a decision. They compare it to Hitler and express the importance of letting the voters decide. The speakers also mention allegations of classified document mishandling by both Biden and Trump, but note that interference from Russia has been debunked. They emphasize the need for the public to determine the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Speaker 0 suggests that Trump's lead in the polls may be the reason behind the push to remove him from the ballot, but Speaker 1 disagrees.

The speaker discusses how the justice department's goal is to go after President Trump by using convictions from the January 6th cases to invoke section 3 of the 14th amendment. However, there are several reasons why this is not applicable. Firstly, the 14th amendment was written for Confederates in the Civil War and does not apply to modern-day situations. Secondly, the text of the 14th amendment explicitly states that it can only be enforced by Congress, not state courts. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to the presidency itself. It would also create practical issues if local courts were able to enforce it. Furthermore, there is no evidence of an insurrection on January 6th, and this has already been litigated in Congress during the second impeachment trial. Finally, there are First Amendment concerns as the conduct in question relates to political speech.

The 25th amendment poses no risk to me, but could be problematic for Joe Biden and his administration. Be cautious about what you wish for.

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.