Judge Delivers 'Worst Decision Trump Could Get' Ahead Of 2024 Campaign

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and some people

are saying that the decision the other day in Colorado was really bad for Donald Trump

Let's take a look at it, but before we get started, please make sure you like, comment

share and subscribe. Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

A legal expert on MSNBC was saying that the decision the other day by the Colorado judge

that left Trump on the ballot was actually a bad thing for the former president

His reasoning was that the judge set a precedent by saying she does believe he's guilty of

insurrection, though he wasn't on trial in her court for insurrection. She believes he's guilty of inciting an insurrection and here's why he said that's a bad thing

Let's take a look. Please walk us through kind of what could happen from here

Yeah, so I do argue appeals for a living and I live part of the year in Colorado, so I'm

very familiar with the Colorado Supreme Court. And you know, I think Andrew and you have got it exactly right

If I were to put the headline on Friday night as an appeals lawyer, it would be, this is

the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court because it's going

to go on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, and there

Trump is going to face extreme headwinds. And the reason for that is the factual, there's two parts, as Andrew says, there's a factual

finding that the judge said, which is Trump committed insurrection. And then there's a legal part that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the presidency

And on appeals, Jen, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court

It's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding. You can overturn the legal findings because that's a basically a fresh look at the legal thing

And here this judge factually made devastating findings against Trump and then looked at

this legal technicality, which was, well, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office

of the president, which is so weak. Even the judge themselves admitted that this would be preposterous

And the reason for that is that there are other parts of the Constitution that say that

the president is an officeholder of the United States, which is kind of obvious

And the text and the part you didn't bold when you flash the 14th Amendment says it

applies to a quote, any office, civil or military under the United States, as long as you've

taken an oath. And of course, the president does take an oath and it would be an insane reading

Otherwise would mean Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee could have run for the presidency in 1868

That would not possibly be the law. And I don't think that it will command a majority of the Colorado Supreme Court or certainly

the United States Supreme Court. So you've argued a lot of cases before the Supreme Court

Would you take this case? Hell yeah. Now, I and other legal experts tend to disagree with him

The fact that that was one Colorado judge's finding isn't doesn't mean it's likely to

be a finding by appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. It also doesn't insert the word presidency into Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

The word presidency is not there and it lists a bunch of offices

You got to think it left out presidency on purpose, that it wasn't just an oversight. It wasn't, oh, we forgot presidency

No, that was the first thing you think of. They listed a bunch of offices

Presidency was not one of them. I want to know what you guys think about this

So please let me know in the comments. Also please remember to like, share and subscribe

It really helps us out. I'm Carmine Sabia. This is Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody