YouTube monologue (Dec 21, 2023) analyzing the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that declared Donald Trump ineligible to appear on Colorado’s ballot. The speaker traces the case back to a complaint filed by the association CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), critiques the court’s 4–3 decision (noting all seven justices were appointed by Democrats), and disputes the legal basis invoked—chiefly Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (insurrection/disqualification). The speaker raises procedural objections (lack of Trump’s hearing/due process), notes that Trump was never criminally convicted for January 6 events, questions the Article’s modern applicability (origin in post–Civil War context and congressional power to remove disqualification), and frames the ruling as part of broader politicization of U.S. courts ahead of the election. The speaker is skeptical that the move will ultimately bar Trump and promises follow-up when more details emerge in January.
Good morning, friends. The Colorado Supreme Court has declared Trump ineligible for the next election. In fact. This is nonsense. The Colorado Supreme Court has seven justices who were all appointed by Democrats. Why did it take action? How did this court come to make this decision? On what occasion? In fact, the occasion is that there is an association called crew crw, which is an association that claims to campaign for ethics in politics. It is officially a citizens association. The C is for cz. So it is a citizens association. Right. It wants to campaign for ethics in politics. There you have it. I assure you, you couldn't make it up. And in fact, she has filed a complaint against Trump. So this is not the first time she has filed a complaint against Trump. The first time she filed a complaint against him. Hold onto your hats. It was, I think, on January 23, 2017. He had just arrived at the office, which means he had only been here for, I think, three days. He arrived on the 20th. Three days later, he received the first complaint by registered mail. It was written before he even came to power. The first complaint stated that since he has businesses abroad, since he owns hotels, golf courses and all that, and that there are foreign clients, he. He obviously receives money from abroad. And we have a president who receives money from abroad, so that is extremely suspicious. And we can suspect him of being a traitor to the nation because the money comes from abroad. In short, anything goes. You see, the United States, whether you are in politics, business, or anything else, Americans are very open to complaints. That means complaints are coming in. I used to work for American companies, and complaints are coming in almost every day for anything. And complaints are written by lawyers who cite laws and everything, who put stamps on them and who file them in jurisdictions left and right. It's the national sport in the United States. So this statement from the court in Colorado follows precisely this complaint from the CREW Association. The CREW association officially claims, by the way, that it is apolitical. It is there for ethics, okay? At one time, it attacked about 2/3 of Republicans and one third of Democrats. Today, it doesn't even pretend anymore. Today, it almost exclusively attacks Republicans with a very particular focus on Trump. In fact, it is an association when you look at those who support it. And it is very hard to find the list because it is not public, okay? There are suspicions of clashes with Soros associations, Soros associations that are close to the American far left, which are in the same league as crew.
Okay?
So associations of anti fascist activists, and more to the left than that. So this is an association that wants to prevent Trump's Reelection. Well, I don't think that's going to happen. I told you. Uh, that wants to prevent Trump from running as a candidate for election. So the court decided by a margin of four to three. So I was saying that there were seven judges. Four of them decided that Trump should be ineligible under Article 14 of the American Constitution, aligned with Article 3. And three judges said no, that they can't decide that, even though they are Democrats. They said, no, we can't decide that. And they even gave some very interesting points of law, points of constitutionality, because the judges who voted against this resolution, they didn't just say, we are against it. They also gave their arguments.
Okay?
And the arguments are very interesting to read. For example, there is a judge who says that Article 143 does not apply in this case. It is not even applicable in reality. I will give you, for the flip story, Article 3, or Line 3 of the 14th Amendment to the American Constitution. Look at what it says, and I will give you a little bit of what is behind it. No one will be a senator or a representative in Congress or an elector of the presidents and vice presidents.
Okay?
Remember, the American President is elected by electors, not by the people. It is not a direct vote. It is an indirect vote. Nor shall he hold any civil or military office under the government of the United States or of any of the states who, after having taken an oath of office as a member of Congress, or an officer of the United States, or a member of the state legislatures, or an executive or judicial officer of any state, etc. Etc. Has taken part in an insurrection in a rebellion against them. Okay, so what's the idea? The idea is that this article basically says that if you've taken part in an insurrection against the federal government of the United States, well, you can't hold a certain number of roles. For example, you can't become an elector. You can't hold any civil or military office in the government of the United States, and so on and so forth. But in reality, this article hasn't been mentioned in the last 100 years or the last 150 years. Why? Because it was linked to a very, very particular phase in the history of the United States. It was linked to the Civil War. It came after the Civil War. So after the Civil War, which almost saw the United States split into two countries, which would have been a good thing for humanity. But, hey, it doesn't matter. We can't do it again. Well, this article was passed to prevent former Confederate officials from coming to work for the American state. Again, because we were afraid that they would come back and start committing sedition, insurrection and all that.
Okay?
So it was to block them later to gain peace. This article was passed to allow these people to receive a collective pardon, not an individual pardon, allowing them to return to work for the federal state. Why? Because that's what the Constitution provided for. The same article always says at the end, but Congress can, by a two thirds vote of each chamber, lift that disqualification. Now, that disqualification has been collectively lifted two or three times already. So it was lifted collectively. So it was something very contextual. Now, let's forget about the context. Let's forget about the Confederate war, all that. No one will be a senator or a representative in Congress or an elector for president and all that. There is no president of the United States. This very article admits. And what one of the justices says, he says, Trump did horrible things during his presidency. We are convinced that he did horrible things. And let's admit that, God forbid he participated in an insurrection, okay? There are several problems. First, there is what is called due process. What that means is that this court did not hear from Trump, did not hear from his lawyers or anything at all. It just ruled in a vacuum. Now, since this constitutional article is not, so to speak, legally active in the United States, there is no institution in place to defend it. For example, for example, you take the amendment, I think it's the 16th, which talks about levying taxes, okay? It talks about levying taxes and everything, okay? There is the IRS in the United States and other institutions that are there to levy taxes and manage taxes, okay? So every article that exists that gives an obligation or something else, there is an institution behind it or that establishes a crime or that establishes something. There are institutions behind it and a system to put it into practice. This article 143, there is nothing behind it. There is no one there to see if he is committing sedition and to see if he becomes president or not, first of all. Secondly, Trump has never been considered, has never been convicted, okay? By a court, either in a state or in a federal court. He has never been found guilty and convicted of an act of insurrection.
Okay?
Here they are referring to the crew when they filed a complaint. They are referring to the events of January 6, 2021. However, he has never been tried and found guilty. So what are we going to base this on?
Okay?
So that makes no sense. Another thing here is that the article does not concern the president at any time, even if we admit it. Let's admit it. As the other one said, God forbid He participated in an insurrection. Let's admit it. No one will be a senator. So we are referring to a senator. We are referring to a representative of Congress. He will not be able to be an elector of the president or vice president, nor will he hold any civil or military office in the government of the United States or of any of the states. So a civilian or military officer cannot be president of the country because we specifically cite the president's representative in Congress, but we do not cite the president.
Okay?
So this article technically does not apply. So the judgment is currently suspended until the beginning of January, the time to look into it in detail. But it is not a judgment that, in my opinion, is fair in itself, taken in isolation, and will prevent Trump from being a candidate.
Okay.
On the other hand, it shows you today that there is a very rotten situation in the United States. We are now using the justice system, including the courts, state courts and all that. We are using them to settle political scores and to influence the elections. This is just the beginning of what you are seeing, because, quite simply, we are a little less than a year away from the elections now. Okay, so what you are seeing is just the first step in the water.
Okay?
It won't work. It won't go very far. But what's happening is that we're going to see this kind of thing nonstop until the elections. With a game, watch it carefully. With a game that will progressively deteriorate as the deadlines approach. So there you have it. This is the first round, or rather the first round, I should say, of Trump versus the deep state. We'll see how it plays out. I don't think there's really much mystery. There's not much suspense. It's the deep state that's going to win here. That's clear. Just look, just for the road, I'll give you something. Look at the list of people who work with Trump, people close to Trump, who worked with him as an advisor or in some other capacity, and who have had legal problems. The list is impressive. It's an endless list. Some have even gone to prison. Okay, so there's a concerted attack against him and the people around him. And I'm telling you this, I'm not even your pro, Classic Trump or otherwise. I'm an observer, okay? I'm an observer, and I'm interested in these stories. So we're watching. And I'll come back to you another time with more details on this story when we know more in January. See you soon, my friends. Mister.
