Supreme Court's Function in Colorado Case, Terror Threat in the US from Hezbollah, & Will SCOTUS Be Unanimous on Trump Ballot Decision Week In Review

Summary

The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson: Supreme Court, Terror Threats, and Democracy Under Fire

Release Date: January 13, 2024

Hosted by renowned political commentator Ben Ferguson, The 47 Morning Update delves into the pressing political and national security issues shaping America today. In this episode, Ferguson sits down with Senator Ted Cruz to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Donald Trump's ballot eligibility in Colorado, the heightened terror threat from Hezbollah, and the broader implications for American democracy and national security.

---

1. Supreme Court's Review of Trump's Ballot Eligibility in Colorado

Overview: The episode opens with a critical discussion about the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case concerning Donald Trump's removal from the Colorado ballot. This case could set a precedent affecting similar lawsuits in other states attempting to bar Trump from future elections.

Key Points:

• Oral Arguments Structure: Senator Cruz explains that Supreme Court arguments typically last about an hour, featuring active questioning from justices (01:21). He notes a shift towards a more regimented format post-Covid, moving away from the previously chaotic, rapid-fire questioning.

• Trump's Defense: Trump argues that he did not participate in an insurrection, defining insurrection narrowly as "the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States" (04:04). Cruz supports this stance, labeling attempts to depict Trump’s actions as insurrection as "ludicrous."

• Potential Court Outcomes: Cruz predicts a high likelihood (60-70%) of a unanimous decision in favor of Trump, emphasizing the importance of the Court maintaining non-partisan integrity (04:04). He warns against a split decision (e.g., 6-3) that could damage the Court’s reputation and deepen partisan divides (04:13).

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz (01:21): "Normally an argument is an hour. So normally each side has 30 minutes. They can extend it... it’s not a monologue."

• Senator Ted Cruz (04:04): "There is a 60 to 70% chance of it being unanimous... there's a 40 to 30%, 30 to 40% chance that the liberal justices just hate Trump so much they can't bring themselves to do it."

---

2. Hezbollah Terror Threat and US Border Security Concerns

Overview: The conversation shifts to national security, highlighting intelligence warnings about a potential Hezbollah terrorist attack in the United States. The discussants examine how an open southern border exacerbates this threat.

Key Points:

• Heightened Threat Levels: American intelligence officials have flagged an elevated risk of Hezbollah attacks domestically, surpassing previous concerns related to ISIS and Al-Qaeda (11:21).

• Border Vulnerabilities: The open southern border, with over 9.6 million illegal crossings under the Biden administration, is identified as a significant vulnerability. Cruz criticizes the administration for failing to secure the border, thereby facilitating potential terrorist entry (13:35).

• Intelligence Warnings: Senior US Intelligence officials warn that Hezbollah could exploit border weaknesses to plan and execute attacks within the country (14:41). The lack of adequate response from the administration is a point of contention.

Notable Quotes:

• Unnamed Expert (15:21): "This is a very fine line to walk. And in the present regional context, their actions carry the potential for miscalculation. This is what they're admitting."

• Senator Ted Cruz (17:12): "How do you not remember 9/11? Where is the disconnect here?"

---

3. Implications for American Democracy and Supreme Court Integrity

Overview: The episode explores the broader implications of the Supreme Court's potential decision and the ongoing terror threats on American democracy and the integrity of the judicial system.

Key Points:

• Democratic Integrity: Cruz emphasizes that removing a candidate from the ballot without due process undermines democratic principles. He fears that a split decision by the Supreme Court could portray it as a partisan body, damaging public trust (20:18).

• Historical Context: Cruz references the 14th Amendment, Section 3, originally enacted post-Civil War to prevent insurrectionists from holding office. He draws parallels to the current situation, arguing that unlike the clear-cut case of the Civil War, the events of January 6, 2021, do not meet the threshold of an insurrection (25:28).

• Call for Legislative Action: The discussion highlights the need for Congress to enact legislation to enforce Section 3 properly, ensuring that any removal from office is based on concrete legal findings rather than judicial overreach (05:40).

• Future Predictions: Cruz anticipates the Supreme Court will likely reverse Colorado's decision, reaffirming voters' rights to choose their president without judicial interference. He hopes for a unanimous decision to preserve the Court's legitimacy (09:55; 25:28).

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz (25:28): "There are very few things I have hoped for more passionately that I can recall than that I hope this is unanimous."

• Unnamed Expert (27:33): "I think that that's what I would rule if I were a justice. That is the sort of opinion I would write."

---

4. Generational Shifts and Political Ramifications

Overview: The conversation addresses generational differences in the perception of national security threats and the politicization of security policies.

Key Points:

• Memory of 9/11: Cruz notes that younger generations may lack the personal memories of 9/11, leading to a diminished sense of urgency regarding current threats (17:12).

• Party Radicalization: The podcast touches on the alleged radicalization within the Democratic Party, attributing it to longtime opposition to Trump and a shift away from historical security awareness (19:52).

• Media Influence: Cruz criticizes the mainstream media for not adequately reporting on these security threats, arguing that it allows political agendas to overshadow national security concerns (18:04).

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz (17:12): "How do you not remember 9/11? Where is the disconnect here?"

• Unnamed Expert (18:04): "There is a dynamic that. That many people in America were getting far enough beyond 9/11, that many people don't have a personal acute memory."

---

Conclusion

Ben Ferguson and Senator Ted Cruz provide a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court's pivotal role in upholding democratic standards amidst high-stakes political battles. They also shed light on the urgent national security threats posed by Hezbollah and the critical vulnerabilities within the US border system. The episode underscores the delicate balance between judicial integrity, legislative action, and effective security measures in safeguarding American democracy and national safety.

For listeners seeking a deeper dive into these discussions, detailed insights, and Senator Cruz's expert predictions, tuning into the full podcast is highly recommended.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Senator Ted Cruz (01:21): "Normally an argument is an hour. So normally each side has 30 minutes. They can extend it...it’s not a monologue."

• Senator Ted Cruz (04:04): "There is a 60 to 70% chance of it being unanimous... there's a 40 to 30%, 30 to 40% chance that the liberal justices just hate Trump so much they can't bring themselves to do it."

• Senator Ted Cruz (25:28): "There are very few things I have hoped for more passionately that I can recall than that I hope this is unanimous."

• Unnamed Expert (15:21): "This is a very fine line to walk. And in the present regional context, their actions carry the potential for miscalculation. This is what they're admitting."

---

Join Ben Ferguson on The 47 Morning Update for more unfiltered insights, exclusive interviews, and honest commentary on the issues shaping America today.

Transcript

[Ben Ferguson]

Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz and it is the Week in Review. Ben Ferguson with you. And these are the big stories that you may have missed that we talked about this past week. First up, the Supreme Court is going to hear a serious case that deals with Donald Trump, Colorado and his name being taken off the ballot. They've decided to hear that. So what does it mean for all the other lawsuits in other states? They're trying to take him off the ballot.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

They're trying.

[Ben Ferguson]

The senator was going to give you all of that information, especially about how the Supreme Court will work. That is something very important. Plus, we have gotten now word that there is real concerns inside the United States of America of a coordinated terrorist attack at the hands of Hezbollah. How would they get into this country? More than likely it would be across our open southern border. And we'll explain those details. And finally, when the Supreme Court hears this case with Colorado and Donald Trump, is there a chance that the Supreme Court will stand up for democracy in a unanimous decision? Senator Cruz gives you his prediction on exactly that. It is the Weekend Review and it starts right now. How long are they going to have to argue this? I mean, when you talk about oral arguments, is it, is it hours? Is it 90 minutes? What are we talking about?

[Senator Ted Cruz]

So normally an argument is an hour. So normally each side has 30 minutes. They can extend it. They might extend it in this instance, I don't know. But normally an argument is an hour. And the bulk of the argument, by the way, is questioning from the justices. So you get up and the justices are asking you questions and that it's a back and forth. It's not a monologue.

[Ben Ferguson]

Is there even an opening statement?

[Senator Ted Cruz]

There is there didn't used to be. So the old way they did Supreme Court arguments was you would start off, you'd stand up and you'd say, Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. And every argument begins with that. And you would sometimes get less than a sentence into your argument and a justice would jump in and pepper you with questions. And what made it invigorating is you'd have a question here, question here, question here. And it was just nonstop. And you had to be quick and fast and anticipate justices who disagreed with your position. They're trying to ask you questions to expose the weakness of your case. And you had to anticipate it. They have post Covid. They regimented it now. And I really don't like how they do it now. But they now have a period of questioning from each justice and so it's a little. It's not the wild free point.

[Ben Ferguson]

It's almost like Congress where you have five minutes or you have three minutes, and then you go in this order. Whereas before, it could be a conservative justice ask you a question followed up by a liberal justice ask you a question, followed up by another justice asking you a question. It was controlled chaos.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

It was, yes, but it is more regimented now. But I would say, I would expect the Chief Justice's questions to lay out in the questions what he thinks is the best theory to bring the Court together. All right, let me give you the rest of Trump's arguments. Fourth argument he makes is that Trump did not participate in an insurrection because an insurrection, as understood at the time of passage of the 14th Amendment, means the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States. Now, I think that's absolutely correct. I think it's ludicrous to say that Trump engaged in an insurrection based on the facts. I also do not believe the Supreme Court will conclude that, because you can't get nine justices for that. And I think they will want unanimity. And so they'll say, look, my guess is we might get a concurrence from one of the more conservative justices saying this clearly was not an insurrection, but we might not. And by the way, look, I said that there's a 60 to 70% chance of it being unanimous. That means there's a 40 to 30%, 30 to 40% chance that the liberal justices just hate Trump so much they can't bring themselves to do it.

[Ben Ferguson]

And what would that decision look like? I mean, would it be one or two that say, hey, just for the principal, and said, no, no, we're gonna go seven, two here or even go six, three.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

Look, six, three would be heartbreaking. It would do real damage for the country, to the court and to the country, if it just broke on partisan lines. If the three liberal justices dissented and the six more conservative justices were in the majority, I think that would be terrible for the Court.

[Ben Ferguson]

It shows how partisan.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

I really hope it's not so. The fifth argument that Trump made is that the electors clause requires states to appoint presidential electors, quote, in such matter as the legislature thereof may direct. In other words, the courts can't intervene in that. The sixth argument is that Section 3 cannot be used to deny a candidate access to the ballot. It can only be used instead to prevent someone from holding office. So all of those are arguments, as I said. And, you know, and it's worse, by the way, the argument that I think will fly is the argument that it was not adequately determined that Trump had participated in an insurrection. Not that there wasn't an insurrection, but that the means of ascertaining that was.

[Ben Ferguson]

That goes back to Jack Smith and what you're talking about. He was never charged, much less convicted, and it didn't work its way through the court system. And so if you believe that Donald Trump, in fact was a part of an insurrection, then charge him with it, get him convicted of it, then you have that different argument. Goes back to what you were saying at the very beginning.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

Yes. And I will say, look, one of the questions that will be front and center litigated is whether Section three is self executing. Self executing means a provision of the Constitution that has force of law, that doesn't need Congress to pass legislation to enforce it, and that will be actively disputed. And in the Colorado Supreme Court, one of the justices, Justice Carlos Samore, dissented on this point. And what he said is that the majority opinion of Colorado stripped President Trump of due process, of the due process of law. And he says Section 3 didn't specify the procedures that have to be followed to be determined whether someone is engaged in insurrection. All the Democrats, just absurd. It's insurrection. It's insurrection. Yeah, but that hasn't been determined as a legal matter. And so Justice Samore concluded the section 3 is not self executing and requires legislation for enforcement. And he argued that the lower court's proceeding in Colorado lacked basic discovery, lacked the ability to subpoena documents, lacked the ability to compel witnesses, lacked any timeframe to investigate or develop defenses, and lacked the opportunity for a fair trial. And he pointed out that in his view, section 3 cannot be self executing because it doesn't provide any procedural guidance. For example, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is completely silent on whether a jury has to be impaneled or not. Can a judge decide it, or does it have to be a jury or peers? Well, Section three doesn't say it. What's the burden of proof? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it clear and convincing evidence? Is it simply a preponderance of the evidence? Those are very different burdens of proof. Constitution is silenced on that. What's the standard of review? What's the standard of discovery? What's the standard of evidence? Is it a civil determination or criminal determination? None of that is there. And so what he argues is that Congress could pass legislation to adjudicate that. I'm not entirely persuaded on that. What I would say is Congress has passed legislation when it set up a criminal statute for insurrection, that there is a mechanism and it is a criminal trial.

[Ben Ferguson]

And charge him.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

And charge him.

[Ben Ferguson]

And so you go back to the very beginning of what you said. No one has had the Coneys to charge him because they know they would lose.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

You could not prove the case in court, which is why instead, you have partisan judges or a partisan secretary of state just asserting it because they believe it is a political matter. Now, on our next podcast, what I want to walk into and go into is there is some history and some Supreme Court history on the 14th Amendment in Section 3, right after the Civil War and Jefferson Davis in particular. So I'm gonna give a tease. For our next podcast, I'm gonna walk through what happened with Jefferson Davis under the 14th Amendment, Section 3. But let's be clear. Jefferson Davis by any measure, engaged in dramatically different conduct, leading the Confederacy and waging war with the United States for four years is very different from giving a speech telling people to be peaceful. And so. But there is complicated precedent post Civil War. In the next podcast, we'll dive into that.

[Ben Ferguson]

It's gonna be very fun. This is why I love doing this show. I also will get your political predictions. I do wanna end with one last thing, just so people have that timeline you mentioned earlier. Supreme Court's gonna hear this win. And when do you think we'll have a decision from the Supreme Court?

[Senator Ted Cruz]

February 8th is when they hear the oral argument. I think we will get a decision quickly. I think it's possible it could be within days. I think it will be at the very latest by March 5, which is when the Colorado primary is. And my guess is it'll be a week or two. That's just. It'll be as quick as they could write the opinions, but I think they will feel an urge to move quickly.

[Ben Ferguson]

Now, if you wanna hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now, on to story number two. It's not shocking, but it certainly is a sobering moment. We know we have an open Southern border. We know that more people on the terrorist watch list were caught last year coming across the southern border than the last five years before it combined. And now there's a new report coming out from Politico that American intel officials are warning of a risk of a Hezbollah attack, not just on us men and women around the world and service members and in some of our bases, but a real elevated risk at home. Four officials familiar with the intelligence have confirmed this to Politico that they're worried about attacks here outside of what we've seen from ISIS and Al Qaeda, where it's lone wolf type attacks, where they could be coming into this country already in this country and planning a major attack.

[Unnamed Expert]

Well, I think that's exactly right. And I've said before, I think the risk of a major terrorist attack in 2024 is greater than it has been at any time since September 11, 2001 that we have right now, number one, a war. The Middle East. In Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah have called upon their terrorists to wage jihad not just against Israel, but against America. And we have an open border on our southern border due to Joe Biden and the Democrats. 9.6 million people have crossed illegally into this country under Joe Biden. When I was last down on the southern border, I'm down there a lot, multiple border patrol agents told me they were deeply concerned about the risk of Hamas terrorists and Hezbollah terrorists crossing the border. Because Joe Biden, it continues to be an open border to this day. They could be crossing right now as we are speaking, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists could be crossing in. And, and what is so frustrating is if you were a Hamas commander, Ben, you would send terrorists in. It's a glaring vulnerability that Joe Biden, the Democrats don't care to solve. So this political article that just came out quoted a senior US Intelligence official as saying, and this is a quote, Hezbollah could draw on the capability they have to put people in places to do something. It is something to be worried about, said the official. And this is consistent with we did a previous podcast where we read the memo that customs and border patrol had sent to border patrol agents saying be on particular guard for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and also Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists trying to cross the border. And it is astonishing to me that even in the face of that risk, which suddenly the FBI is publicly acknowledging, where six months ago they were not acknowledging it, they are dow. And what that tells me is the classified intel is even worse than what we know in public.

[Ben Ferguson]

You know, you don't have to leap very far to get from point A to point B on something as simplistic of, hey, if you are a terrorist organization, are you going to take the risk of putting people that could be on the terrorist watch list on airplanes and try to get them into the country that way? Or are you just going to get them to come across the southern open border when there's millions of people that have already? It's worked successfully for, you know that if you are not on the watch list and they catch you. About 80 plus percent of you are being released into the interior of this country. And if you want to be one of the gotaways, it's not that hard. You've witnessed it firsthand at the southern border. And yet this administration refuses to admit that's a national security risk. And I think even now, if you ask them, they would refuse to acknowledge the existence of a real terrorist threat because of an open southern border. And you got to ask yourself at that point, like, what, what does it take for them to get their heads out of the rear end, Senator? And understand this isn't just about an open border or border policy. This is about a national security policy as well.

[Unnamed Expert]

Now, look, that's exactly right. You know, Christy Abizide, who's the director of the National Counterterrorism center, said during a congressional hearing in October. Here's what she said. Quote, Iran, Hezbollah and their linked proxies are trying to calibrate their activity, avoiding actions that would open up a concerted second front with the United States or Israel while still exacting costs in the midst of the current conflict. This is a very fine line to walk. And in the present regional context, their actions carry the potential for miscalculation. This is what they're admitting.

Um, here, here's what Anthony Antony Blinken.

The Secretary of State, said. Quote, this is a moment of profound tension in the region. This is a conflict that could easily metastasize. And yet, even as they're admitting that they're not willing to secure the border, here's what Chris Wray said in a congressional hearing on November 15th. Quote, the arrest of individuals in the United States allegedly linked to Hezbollah main overseas terrorist arm. And their intelligence collection and procurement efforts demonstrate Hezbollah's interest in the long term contingency planning activities here in the homeland. And none of this is persuasive to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Alejandro Mayorkas or, or any of the congressional Democrats who are all willing to turn a blind eye and say right now, today, when, whenever you're listening to this podcast, if you're listening to this podcast at six in the morning, if you're listening to this podcast at noon, if you're listening to this podcast at 6pm or if you're listening to this podcast at midnight, whatever time you're listening to it, right now, there are people crossing illegally into this country and the Biden administration is doing nothing to stop them. In the last three years, there have been over 2 million gotaways. Those are people that have evaded capture. We know about them, but they didn't turn themselves in. Whereas the bulk of the people who came did turn themselves in. The got aways are the most dangerous. You want to know where the terrorists are, they're the gotaways. You want to know where the criminals are, they're the gotaways, the murderers, the rapists, they're the got aways. You want to know where the gang members of the Ms. Thirteen are, they're the gotaways. And I don't know what it will take to get this administration to actually step up and say we're going to keep the American people safe from a terror attack.

[Ben Ferguson]

Is it arrogance? Last question on this. Is it arrogance that you know, oh, we know better because there is a younger age that is serving in the house now than we've seen that maybe doesn't understand or remember truly what happened on 9 11. Is it an arrogance of the Democratic Party that they just don't care about history in the past? I mean, I remember 911 like it was yesterday. I know you do as well, and many Americans do. And when you hear this type of threat, you can imagine it because you've lived through 9 11. You can imagine what it looks like when you allow Hezbollah terrorists to come across the southern border and what they can do if they are well trained, which they are, and if they can get their hands on what they need to carry out a significant terrorist attack. And I sit here and go, how do you not remember 9 11? Where is the disconnect here?

[Unnamed Expert]

Well, look, for one thing, 911 was 22 years ago. 22 years ago is a long time. You and I, although we think we're spring chickens, we're not anymore. You're in your 40s, I'm in my 50s. There are a lot of people. There is not a single college kid who remembers 9 11. There are a lot of people in their 30s who. 911 is a dead distant memory from their childhood. And look, I get it. You know, for me, I think about, like Pearl Harbor. I know about Pearl Harbor. It's a horrible day in history. It's a horrible day in US history. But do I have a personal emotional reaction to Pearl Harbor? No. It happened long before I was born. So it's kind of. I've read about it, but I didn't live through it. So there is a dynamic that. That many people in America were getting far enough beyond 9 11, that many people don't have a personal acute memory. And then I think beyond that, what has happened is that we've seen the Democrat Party in Washington radicalized, and it's been happening for a while. Barack Obama started this process of radicalizing it, and then Trump becoming president broke their brains. They hate Trump so much that I actually just think they've convinced themselves that anything is justified fighting Trump. And, and the result of it is that they're embracing radical policies. And because the press, Trump broke the press, the media doesn't report on this. And, and, and so the Democrats are radicalized because they know they will never be asked back home about the extreme policies they're supporting.

[Ben Ferguson]

As before, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download the podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing. I want to get back to the big story number three of the week. You may have missed one other question I want to ask you about this case moving forward. You predicted that this is going to be probably a very stern Supreme Court on this issue with Colorado.

[Unnamed Expert]

Yeah.

[Ben Ferguson]

Has your mind changed at all since we did part one on that? I mean, you're back in D.C. you've seen, I guess, more of the press reaction. You've seen more of the reaction in Washington. Do you still think that the Supreme Court is eager to not only take this up, but also to say, hey, you can't in America, in the United States of America right now, we let the people decide. We don't let people, you know, dictate who you can and can't vote for.

[Unnamed Expert]

So let me say, I wouldn't say eager is the right adjective. They're not eager. The court would love to stay out of this. They don't want to be involved in this presidential election. They want to stay out of it. But once Colorado ruled that they were pulling Trump off the ballot, the court had to get in. And I actually think every justice recognized, okay, we've got a responsibility. We can't duck this. We've got to resolve this. Because this is the court exists to resolve the most important legal issues in the country, particularly concerning the Constitution. And whether you will allow the voters to vote for a candidate for president is right at the top of it is difficult to imagine a more consequential constitutional issue than that. And so I think every justice recognized, even though they don't want to be in this, they had a responsibility and they really had no choice. Now, I also believe the odds are overwhelming, close to 100% that the Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court. I just, I do not believe they are going to Allow one of the two major parties, candidates for president to be removed from the ballot and to tell the voters, you don't get to decide who the President is. That is contrary to, to democracy. It is an assault on democracy. Ironically, while Joe Biden is prancing around and proclaiming his defense for democracy, he and the Democrats and the media are trying to utterly frustrate democracy and stop the voters from voting for their opponents. I think the Court is going to easily reverse it and I desperately hope. I gotta say there are very few things I have hoped for more passionately that I can recall then that I hope that this is unanimous. If it's six, three, if it's the conservatives voting to reverse and the liberals voting to affirm, that is bad for the Supreme Court, it is bad for the country, it is bad for the rule of law. It will cement the perception that the Court is a political body and that is disastrous for the Court. I am certain that there is no human being on the planet that feels that urgency more intensely than Chief Justice John Roberts. I know John Roberts very, very well. We've been friends for 30 years. He cares exquisitely about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. And so I think the Chief justice is going to bend over backwards to find any theory that would produce a unanimous decision. There are lots of theories he could do. The one I find most persuasive, the one if, if I had, if Trump had offered me the Scalia seat and I'd gotten the nomination in the place of Gorsuch of the Senate to confirm me, if I were a Justice, the theory that I would be inclined to agree with is what I laid out on the last podcast, which is, it is absolutely true, and I think correct, that if an individual engages in insurrection, they're not eligible to be elected to federal office. I'm convinced of that. However, what is not clear is how you determine whether someone, quote, engaged in insurrection. As I described in the last podcast. The Civil War was indisputably an insurrection. No one can dispute that. We had a four year war with 600,000 dead Americans like it was. It is why the 14th amendment, section three was passed. It was in response to the Civil War. It is the embodiment of an insurrection. There is a real and acute debate over whether what occurred on January 6, 2021 constitute an insurrection. I think the answer is easy. I think the answer is hell no. I don't think it remotely reaches that level. But there are those who disagree. I will acknowledge there's disagreement with almost every damn Democrat and all of the media, they say, routinely, insurrection, insurrection and insurrection. However, the constitutional question is, how do you determine that someone has engaged in an insurrection in the Civil War? Since nobody disputed the Civil War was an insurrection, the only question is, did you engage in it? So if you put on a Confederate uniform, if you had stars, stars on your shoulder, you were guilty. Like, like that. It was easy to determine whether you fell into that disqualification.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah, it was, it was as simple as you could make it at that point.

[Unnamed Expert]

Yeah, there was no, no one disputed the Civil War was an insurrection. And I'm not aware of anyone that disputed if someone was in fact a Confederate officer. I don't know of anyone that said, no, no, I wasn't a Confederate officer. Like, the two pieces were admitted. And so there was no meaningful factual dispute here. There is a reason that Jack Smith and every other prosecutor, that left wing prosecutor that hates Donald Trump, that nobody has charged Trump with the crime of insurrection because you couldn't remotely prove that. The facts don't demonstrate it. And so I think the theory, the Supreme Court will say, and I predicted a sentence from, look, when this comes down, and I think it'll come down, it'll be argued February 8th, I'm going to predict it comes down February 19th. I'm just pulling a date out. It will be sometime between February 8th and March 4th. I'm pulling a date out of, out of the air saying February 19th. When it comes down, I'm predicting right now there will be a sentence. We express no opinion over whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection or not. However, in order for the 14th Amendment prohibition to apply, there needs to be a conclusive determination that it was an insurrection. And for those who urge Trump should be ineligible, for the Biden Department of Justice, which has urged Trump should be ineligible, they have a path to prove that case, which is to charge him with insurrection and convict him and obtain a final judgment that he's guilty of insurrection. If they do so, he will be ineligible for office. But they have not done so. And accordingly, this decision should not be made by judges in Colorado or a partisan, unelected Secretary of State in Maine, but rather, the decision of the next president should be made by the voters.

[Senator Ted Cruz]

And the American people.

[Unnamed Expert]

I think that that's what I would rule if I were a justice. That is the sort of opinion I would write. And my hope is, I really hope the liberal justices are not infected by Trump derangement syndrome, like so many Democrats are, that they recognize the damage to the court. If they make this a partisan decision will be historic and irreparable. And so I pray they don't do that.

[Ben Ferguson]

As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. Don't forget to download my podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards. I'd love to have you as a listener to again, the Ben Ferguson Podcast. And we will see you back here on Monday morning.