Image 01 Image 03

“It’s going be a free-for-all in the country if they allow Colorado to get away with” keeping Trump off the ballot

“It’s going be a free-for-all in the country if they allow Colorado to get away with” keeping Trump off the ballot

My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer talking about the SCOTUS Colorado oral argument and the Special Counsel report about Biden being an “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory”

I appeared this morning on Chicago’s Morning Answer show with Dan Proft, and Thomas Drum (sitting in for Amy Jacobson). This is one of my favorite shows on which to appear, and I’ve been on many times before.

The topics related to my two posts:

The entire segment is worth listening to, including the first half where they played clips from the oral arguments, but I’ve marked the video to start where I joined, at the 9:00 mark to talk about the SCOTUS oral argument in the Colorado “insurrection” ballot case. At the 11:30 mark the conversation switched to the Special Counse’s decision not to charge Joe Biden based on Biden being an “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory”

I have started the transcription below where I joined.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)

Proft (08:58):

For more on this, we’re pleased be joined by Professor William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. He’s also the founder of, president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation. Professor Jacobson, thanks for joining us again. Appreciate it.

WAJ (09:14):

Thank you for having me on.

Proft (09:16):

I mean, it seems like, maybe with the exception of Sotomayor, and maybe under pressure, if it is good looking the way of an 8-0 decision against the Colorado Supreme Court’s position, that she’ll fold in, it looks like this is, I mean, it sounds pretty straightforward from the questioning, doesn’t it?

WAJ (09:37):

Well, it sure does. We’re always hesitant to jump to conclusions based on oral argument, but given this is such a weighty question, everybody saw it coming for weeks now, and nobody took the side of the people who want Trump off the ballot. Clearly people are predicting 8-1 or 9-0. I think if, if it’s 8-1, I think you’re right, it probably would be 9-0. They may all have their different reasons and there’s, three or four or five or six reasons why this should be reversed. That came out in oral argument. And they may not all agree on all of them, but I think we’re going probably get 9-0 here. I think Justice Roberts hit it right on the head. It’s going be a free-for-all in the country if they allow Colorado to get away with this.

Proft (10:26):

Right. Yeah, that to me, is that the practical consequence. I mean, we can go through some of the issues that are more dense, the self-executing argument with respect to section three. But  just the practical implications that Roberts articulated and have been articulated in the run up to oral arguments here in the public domain, that that is not a tenable situation. And the court definitely doesn’t want to even contemplate the prospect of being put into the position that Justice Roberts described.

WAJ (10:59):

That’s right. And that’s what he sees coming, he sees that what the Colorado supporters really want here is they want to toss this all to the Supreme Court eventually. And he pointed out how impractical that is, and this is a court that’s been under attack a lot. It doesn’t want to be in that position, and it’s not required to be in that position. And so I don’t think they are voluntarily going to take on the role of deciding which states get counted and which don’t.

Proft (11:28):

Well, so he good news is that I think they conference today after oral arguments, right? So we should hear something from them relatively soon, and we can put this issue to bed and tackle the myriad other issues before us between now and November. Yes?

WAJ (11:45):

Well, I would think they’d come out with something quickly. I mean, they just have to, we’re in the election season now. That doesn’t mean necessarily Monday, but they’re not going to wait till June on this. They can’t wait till June on this. My guess is within a couple of weeks we’ll have their decision. They all probably have their opinions written already, and they’re just waiting. We could get six or seven or eight opinions here, but I think at the end of the day, it’s going to probably be 9-0 that Colorado is reversed.

Proft (12:15):

I wanted to get to another matter with you too, after last night’s press conference from President Biden. And the aftermath of that now being the renewed question about his competency to continue to serve, some discussion of impeachment on this basis. I don’t really see that, some discussion of a 25th Amendment invocation because of his performance and what’s contained in that special prosecutor’s report, Robert Hur’s report about his memory and by extension,competency to stand trial. But I mean, that seems relatively implausible too when you need the VP and a majority of the executive departments or a majority of Congress to move on the president. I don’t think one press conference or one special prosecutor’s report gets it done, but in the aftermath of that, from a legal perspective, what would you be thinking?

WAJ (13:16):

I’m not sure there’s a legal remedy here for anybody, I don’t think, I think you’re absolutely right.  The notion that the 25th Amendment’s going to be invoked successfully here, I think is very slim. Unless they’re seeing something that others aren’t. Now Kamala Harris, I think she’d go along with it if she thought she had the votes, but  I don’t know that they’ll be there. Remember, these are all people appointed by Biden. So I think it’s going to have to get a lot worse for him. But it’s obviously a huge blow to his campaign. It’s huge fodder for a presumptively Trump campaign. Is it going to matter six months from now? I don’t know, but it’s certainly not the sort of development you want, but I don’t see a legal angle here. I think this is a political angle.

Proft (14:03):

The special prosecutor’s report, was it appropriate for him, since this is supposed to be a legal document, that contains a legal analysis to be talking about how a jury may view a defendant Biden and other such considerations that have very little to do with whether or not he violated the law in terms of handling of classified documents at the time that they were mishandled?

WAJ (14:34):

Well, technically speaking, it shouldn’t make a difference in terms of whether someone was guilty of the crime at the time it was committed. But this is what James Comey did with Hillary Clinton, if you remember, I think it was July 5th, 2016,  he spent 17 minutes going through why she lied about her server, why she lied about documents,  and everybody’s like, now he’s going to lower the boom! And then he says, but no reasonable prosecutor [talkover – would bring such a case] ….

Proft (15:10):

I know, but that’s my point. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.

WAJ (15:14):

I know, but you know, technically speaking, I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think the question is can you prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think a prosecutor should bring a case that he can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to essentially jury nullification. They’re going to think he’s a crazy old man with a bad memory and therefore won’t convict him. So, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate, but it’s been done before. But this is politically, it would’ve been more damaging if the recommendation was an indictment. So I think Biden was let off the hook, but it’s just really frightening that we have somebody who’s deemed mentally incompetent to convict, but can still have his finger on the nuclear codes.

Proft (16:03):

Yeah. Yeah. He’s not fit to stand trial, but he’s certainly fit to be the commander in chief, try to make sense of this dynamic. Uh, yeah, it’s a difficult one. But the other thing you point out though too is it’s been done before, the power of precedent, and this is why setting bad precedents is so dangerous and should be more considered than it is in our politics.

WAJ (16:28):

Yeah. Well, look what they’ve done to Trump, though the prosecutors have exercised that discretion the other way, which is we’re going to put him on trial and try to convict him regardless of what a jury might do. They’re going to try. And whereas Biden gets the benefit of the doubt, which is, well, maybe there are grounds there to convict him, but we don’t think the jury would do it.

So definitely that’s where the double standard lies, they’ve gone out of their way to find a reason to charge and indict Trump. They’ve gone out of their way to find a reason not to charge and indict Joe Biden, where the conduct is mostly similar, not identical. There’s no allegation, if I recall, of obstruction of justice like there is in the Trump case in Florida, but nonetheless, the deliberate and knowing retention of classified information post, in Biden’s case, vice presidency, and in Trump’s case, post-presidency, is really, for the most part, the same. They both thought they were entitled to hold this stuff, and the government says, no, you’re not.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


FOX: Colorado Sec of State says SCOTUS not ‘friendly’ to democracy, voting rights ahead of Trump ballot ruling

‘Trump broke the laws. He incited that violent mob… to try to steal the presidency,’ Griswold told CNN’s John Berman Friday

An extremist, sanctimonious imbecile, a danger to all.

They don’t care if its a free-for-all. They think they’ll come out on top.

Democrats are counting on being able to remove him from swing state ballots, and the RINOs being too cowardly and weak to ever actually fight back and do the same in a state that matters.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Olinser. | February 9, 2024 at 9:44 pm

    Also, I could always go to confession and be forgivin 🙂

    MarkS in reply to Olinser. | February 10, 2024 at 8:36 am

    Exactly! a local radio had tha AL AG on and asked about keeping Joe off of the ballot and he meely mouthed some typical RINO response about fairness, or something

I met a Democrat operative while I was in DC known as Dr. Dirt: Dr. Dirt: .

Republicans should study his methods, which were similar to mine when I was dealing with unscrupulous adversaries. We are dealing with such now and face the fact that there are times you must join an adversary who operates from the gutter.

It won’t be the United States of America anymore if they can remove Trump from ballots.

Ketanji owes her job to biden, so she’s going to say that trump is guilty of “insurrection” like the loyal biden-bot that she is. Ketanji sounds like name of kitchen knife on home shopping channel.

    iconotastic in reply to smooth. | February 10, 2024 at 5:26 am

    She owes her job to the people running the senile pervert and the Democrats in the Senate. She has a lifetime appointment. There is no reason for her to be loyal to Biden. And she has more value to Democrats is she shows a bit of integrity when it doesn’t matter, since her vote and opinion will not make a difference either way.

    fscarn in reply to smooth. | February 10, 2024 at 8:01 am

    Yeah, my sense is that one of the lefty gals is gonna act as a spoiler, even if for the sole reason of spite, of not letting Trump get a 9-0. Bets favor the Wide Latina or the newest lefty. Both are pure AA.

    MarkS in reply to smooth. | February 10, 2024 at 8:39 am

    Actually she nailed it for Trump when she mentioned that in the drafts language of 14/3, the president and VP were mentioned in the list of those that could be barred from holding office but since the final wording did not include them the fact that 14/3 did not apply to the president was intentional

It’s as much an uphill battle to keep Biden on the ballot as it is to keep Trump off. Unable to find a mental health professional to vouch for Biden’s mental health, they sent out a bald-headed lawyer lawyer to tell a bunch of bald-faced lies.

Subotai Bahadur | February 9, 2024 at 10:56 pm

If they keep Trump off of the ballot, it destroys the entire system. It just means that the coming Great Unpleasantness will come sooner.

Subotai Bahadur

What happens if Colorado takes the recent Hawaii Second Amendment case approach and says, “We don’t care what SCOTUS says – no Trump on the ballot”?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to jb4. | February 9, 2024 at 11:54 pm

    Since those in power do not particularly believe in the rule of law or the Constitution, I do not expect the Federal government to act to compel either Hawaii or in this case Colorado if they take a similar stand. A stand off with the coercive organs of state power being in the hands of the Executive.

    Subotai Bahadur

    wendybar in reply to jb4. | February 10, 2024 at 5:16 am

    Then it’s time to start filling up the islands with Joe’s illegal invading man army. They want Joe, let’s give him to them….good and hard.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to jb4. | February 10, 2024 at 2:43 pm

    A good remedy for that woul be to exclude Hawaii votes in their entirity for that election.

    Milhouse in reply to jb4. | February 13, 2024 at 2:11 am

    No such thing happened in Hawaii. If SCOTUS orders Colorado to keep Trump on the ballot then it has no choice but to do so.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | February 10, 2024 at 4:10 am

It should already be a free-for-all with conservative DAs and AGs around the nation bringing piles of indictments against every democrat and every past democrat official and everyone who gave aid and comfort to BLM and the insurrectionist Pantifa efforts in 2020 (and since) and against tons of feds who are abusing their powers to go after any conservative they can get their claws on. The wires should be inundated with extradition requests for these dirtbags, to bring them for ten or twenty different trials for all manner of abuse they committed … and because it would be so jammed they should have to sit in jail awaiting trials that might take 2 or 3 or 5 years to get around to …

This is what should already be happening. It is a shame that the conservatives haven’t really picked up, yet, that this is a fight for America – not just for the nation, but for AMericanism, itself. And this is happening at one of the most sensitive and consequential times in history, as we are just on the cusp of moving out into space (and the governmental systems we take into space are going to shape humanity for millenia. We got very, very lucky with the New World that we had Great Britain as active colonizers of America, as they were motivated mostly by commerce, as opposed to the Spanish and others who were motivated by merely what could be taken back for the King, with little thought of business or growth or society. This is why all the ex-Spanish and Portuguese colonies ended up being such total sh*tholes while the British ex-colonies ended up being the basis of the free world (with America leading the way on that – even leading Britain!).

And this whole disaster in America can be traced right back to Barky. His election was the death knell of this country. That was the reason why people voted for him – to kill America. ANd he brought with him the exact sort of un-AMerican, foreign sensibilities that the “natural born citizen” clause was meant to defend against. But when this country intentionally ignored that Constitutional provision – enough to not even require him to go to court to demonstrate some proof that he was eligible) – that was it, really. People can go back and reread so many threads from conservative blogs in 2008 and they can see that what many argued has exactly come to be.

The one “saving grace”, if you can call it that, is that much of this will likely be moot when the dollar implodes, and when that happens all bets are off, really. NO ONE has any idea what that is going to usher in. It could be very good but it could also be very, very, very bad.

“it’s just really frightening that we have somebody who’s deemed mentally incompetent to convict, but can still have his finger on the nuclear codes.”
We don’t need to worry about that one. His puppeteers told him that the nuclear codes were 1-2-3-4-5.

I suppose the prosecutor was doing his duty. Years ago I remember a very serious, clear cut tax fraud case being closed merely with civil penalties. The reason? The taxpayer had monkey arms bringing his fingertips almost to his ankles. It was thought that jury sympathy would excuse him. A case in which the long arms of the crook prevail over the long arm of the law.

I have a serious question – if Trump does not have Presidential immunity – what about Biden after HE leaves office?

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Hodge. | February 10, 2024 at 10:25 am

    >> . . . what about Biden after HE leaves office?

    He’ll have immunity after he leaves office. Why? Because that’s the way it works. democrats are never held accountable for their illegal acts & actions. republicans simply don’t have the balls to push issues like that against democrats. They’d all rather just get along and ignore it.

There should only be one reason SCOTUS strikes this down: the CO Supreme Court accepted plaintiff’s assertion that Trump committed insurrection without a formal presentation of evidence or a citation to a finding by the Congress.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to George S. | February 10, 2024 at 4:03 pm

    There should be. However, that would imply that both the rule of law and the rules of evidence held in this country.

    Subotai Bahadur