New Fani Willis Witnesses, and the Power of Drudge, with Aronberg, Davis, Moody, and Weinstein

hey everyone I'm Megan Kelly welcome to

the Megan Kelly show and happy super

Tuesday remember that do you guys know

that SNL reference I used to do this on

the air at Fox and Brett Bar be look at

me like what are you doing and then he

like he learned to love super Tuesday ww

it's really not that super it's kind of

super boring uh 2024 a very different

election year from the prior super

Tuesdays we know President Joe Biden and

former president Donald Trump are going

to dominate tonight and they're going to

be the nominees the only thing that's

going to stop them is somehow their own

parties intervening to stop them or you

know the big man upstairs stepping in to

say you won't be around in November God

forbid I'm just saying it's going to

happen these two are the nominees we're

going to let you know officially what

happens um tomorrow but that's not where

the real news is today when it comes to

this presidential race uh instead it is

in the courts and we have major updates

in several of the proceedings including

the fanny Willis disqualification case

in which not one but two two new

Witnesses have just come forward and the

implications for former president Donald

Trump's trial there as well as continued

Fallout in the Supreme Court decision

yesterday which we and others have been

pouring over to figure out just how good

it is for Donald Trump and it turns out

it's even better than we thought uh plus

we've got trial updates now out of New

York

DC and more there are a lot of

maneuverings going on behind the scenes

by the Democrats to make these things

happen faster and of course by team

Trump to slow them down and then by the

media to express outrage in response to

any Trump win but then you knew that

joining me now to kick things off today

is Mike Davis he's founder of the

article 3 project and Dave aronburg

state attorney for pal Beach County

Florida where Mara Lago is located you

can find Mike on Fox Dave on MSNBC but

together only right here on the Megan

Kelly

show don't miss a moment subscribe to

this show on YouTube and follow me on

insta Facebook and X let's discuss a

crucial aspect of your Financial Health

your credit report are you getting

stressed out just as I mentioned those

words stay with me it's time to face a

hard truth your credit report could be

suffering due to unfounded reputation

damaging claims it may not all be true

these are the kind of claims that could

really hurt you but might not hold up

under rigorous scrutiny and that is

where Lexington Law Firm comes into play

for less than a 100 bucks Lexington Law

Will Champion your cause using a

comprehensive arsenal of consumer

protection laws to fight for your best

credit report do you know you're about

to apply for something going to get a

mortgage you're going to get a car loan

Now's the Time to look into this

Lexington Law is fully equipped to

challenge those exploitative creditors

and aggressive debt collectors who

obstruct your financial path go and

visit lexingtonlaw.com for a

complimentary credit assessment let

their experts place your credit under

the microscope ensuring that it reflects

your true Financial story remember to

mention that Megan referred you at

lexingtonlaw.com Empower yourself with

the right team on your

side guys welcome back great to have you

um we'll get to Fanny and a will Fanny

in a Willis Fanny in a minute but I want

to start with the Supreme Court decision

yesterday

uh 9 to Z that Trump um should stay on

the ballot in Colorado and this will

affect him in all the states anybody

trying to kick him off is going to have

to deal with this but as it turns out

there was more in the decision and it it

just broken when we went to air

yesterday then we really knew and um

I'll I'll paraphrase it from Andy

McCarthy's National Review piece where

he said okay it's for sure they held

that states are not empowered by the

14th Amendment to remove alleged

insurrectionists from the ballot that is

clear all nine agreed on that states

can't do it can't have the patchwork of

Colorado finding differently than you

know Georgia Florida Etc and then five

of the justices went on to say the only

conservative who didn't join in this is

Amy Cony

Barrett that this insurrectionist piece

of the the 14th amendment can only be

enforced against someone who's been

convicted of an Insurrection who has

been convicted of an Insurrection and

that is the piece that drove the three

liberals nuts so they wrote their own

decision soda mayor Kagan and katangi

brown Jackson saying you went too far I

read this to the audience yesterday

there was no reason to get to that you

shouldn't have gotten to that and the

reason they're so mad about it Mike is

that what this does is it makes it

impossible for congress really at any

point at any time that's going to affect

Trump to invoke this Clause against him

again because the the majority of the

Supreme Court said this piece of the

Constitution the 14th Amendment saying

you can't run if you if you're an

insurrectionist can only be enforced

against someone convicted of an

Insurrection and Trump hasn't been

convicted he was impeached for things in

the in the house he wasn't found guilty

in the Senate he hasn't been indicted

for Insurrection

anywhere and so this really was even

better for Trump than uh at least we

first thought when we looked at it

yesterday what do you make of it well

the Supreme Court's exactly right and

they're following a predent from more

than 150 years AG ago called the

Griffin's case and it was it's not a

controlling presedent it's a persuasive

presedent where were then chief Justice

salmon Chase uh writing circuit as a

circuit uh judge not a Supreme Court

Justice uh decided the case uh where it

was uh the these exact patterns where

someone was uh they were trying to

disqualify a Confederate who engaged at

Insurrection or rebellion and uh Salman

Chase said no in order to do this

Congress has to pass a Federal Criminal

statute for Insurrection or Rebellion

with a disqualification clause which

which Congress promptly did and it's on

the books now the utmost updated version

was

1948 and it's still in the books and if

Jack Smith or the Democrats want to get

rid of trump if they if they they if

they fear American voters and they don't

want American voters to decide the

election on November 5th 2024 then Jack

SMI Smith better get moving he better

charge Trump with Insurrection under

this statute he better get a federal

jury grand jury to indict a federal jury

to find guilt guilt unanimously with

evidence Beyond a re Reasonable Doubt a

federal judge to convict and that

conviction upheld on appeal that's the

only way you can disqualify under

section three of the 14th Amendment you

have to ask yourself this the January 6

Democrats and the Biden justice

department have spent tens of millions

of dollars hunting for Insurrection

evidence on Trump and they charge Trump

with many other things but they couldn't

charge Trump with Insurrection because

the evidence doesn't exist how many

insurrectionist go unarmed and into into

a nation's capital get to the senate

floor of the nation's capital and walk

through velvet ropes follow police

Direction uh take selfies and don't burn

down the damn place January 6th was a

lawful protest permitted by the National

Park Service that devolved into a riot

period full stop and what what um what

Andy says Dave is that this means that

Congressional Democrats would not be

able to on the next January 6th of 2025

right after we've had the election you

know that was the day they certified the

vote Mike Pence counted the votes they

would not be able to refuse to ratify a

trump Victory on the grounds that he is

an insurrectionist the Supreme Court

just took that away from them and this

is one of the many reasons why some on

the left are very angry at the Supreme

Court for this decision and in

particular for that additional step the

five conservatives

took well first off goodby with you

Megan it's nice to see Mike so happy for

once I can see why he's got two he's got

two really good Supreme Court decisions

uh under his belt plus good polling

numbers so congrats Mike this is your

house on period and uh

I I I tell my Democratic friends this is

what you get when you listen to Susan

sandon for your political advice and end

up voting for Jill Stein you get a

supreme court that doesn't know the idea

of judicial restraint so instead of just

ruling on the issue in front of them

they went further and the one thing I

would disagree with Megan is and I have

a lot of respect for judge McCarthy but

I didn't see that in the opinion where

you have to have a conviction for

Insurrection before you can bounce

someone from the B and I I read this and

the uh and the concurring opinions and

here here's what uh how I interpret it

is that what the Supreme Court said is

that only Congress can uh enforce

section three of the 14th Amendment now

there's nothing in section five that

says it's exclusive to Congress but the

Supreme Court said only Congress so if

that means that there is someone who did

engage in Insurrection and was convicted

of insurrection that State uh States

cannot bounce that person off the ballot

only Congress can establish a mechanism

and if Congress doesn't establish a

mechanism then tough luck plus well wait

let me just let me just answer that

you're right I mean I simplified it for

the audience but what Andy is saying is

that right now the only existing statute

that could be used is the penal law

against Insurrection that's that's the

only law in the books right now that

could be used and Trump has not been

charged as an insurrectionist so yes I

going forward sure they could change the

law but you tell me how in a republican

controlled house and we all remember

School holl Rock it's got to go through

the house and the Senate and be signed

by the president to become a law they're

going to change the law between now and

November oh there is a less than zero

percent chance they're going to do that

there is not going to be a change

Congress is not going to act Congress is

going to do what they're best at which

is do nothing so what this court

decision did was to also tell federal

courts that you don't have the power to

disqualify a federal candidate from

office because of insurrection even if

they're convicted of an Insurrection

it's going to be up to Congress to

create a mechanism to do that and so

that takes the power away from State

officials and judges until Congress acts

so that's why it was such a broad ruling

such a powerful ruling by these juses

and why even Justice Amy Cony Barrett

said hey let's not go this far let's use

some judicial restraint but Katie Bar

the Door Mike's shaking his head no why

well I would say I think David is right

that you can have a component to this

because the predecessor to this criminal

statute on Insurrection or Rebellion

there was a civil statute so it could be

either civil set up by Congress or

criminal so that's uh you know that well

according to the Griffins case it has to

be criminal but there was a civil

component to this um so you know that's

he he could be he could be right there I

would say this on could Congress right

now could Federal prosecutors right now

get rid of people who engaged in

Insurrection and the answer is yes they

would have to be charged those

insurrectionists would have to be

charged under this Federal Criminal

statute for Insurrection or Rebellion

with a disqualification Clause that's

already on the books Congress wouldn't

have to do anything new it's just the

the Biden justice department would

actually have to come up with evidence

of insurrectional rebellion well like

Mike like take take for example some of

those j6 defendants who actually were

charged with Insurrection and found

guilty I don't know if they were charged

with Insurrection I think they were

charged with seditious conspir which is

oh right you're right you're right

you're right so that wouldn't do it so

but if you were to have a January 6th uh

defendant charged with Insurrection and

convicted of insurrection the Supreme

Court has basically said those people

are not going to be

president

correct so you know Dave maybe if you go

after hornman or lecturn guy uh my two

favorites for president uh you know you

could you could take them out with that

statute well Megan Mike Mike is right

that no one has been charged with

Insurrection they've been charged with

sistic conspiracy which is different but

now correct if I'm wrong Mike I the

statute that says that Insurrection is a

crime contains a section that says you

cannot run again I thought that was what

was in the 14th Amendment section three

the statute actually prohibits you from

running again if you violate stat on the

the definely lost my audience just give

me the bottom line without doing

in-depth statutory analysis I mean so if

if you want to disqualify for

Insurrection or Rebellion there is a

statute on the books a Federal Criminal

statute on the books right now the

latest version is was 1948 it's been on

the books for a long time you charge

under Insurrection or rebellion and

there is a disqualification provision in

that statute so if you're convicted of

insurrection or Rebellion under that

statute you are

disqualified okay but that hasn't

happened to Donald Trump that's the

operative point and while they could

change the law going forward there's

zero chance that this house controlled

by the Republicans is going to be on

board with that so for now Trump is

protected and not just for now I mean

all the way through the election and

potentially you know up to January 6th

um when you know he's he's if he wins

he's going to have the vote certified

and so on all right so that's a very

good thing for Donald Trump and it's

very bad for people like Michael ludig

Lawrence tribe who I mean since this

idea came up and ludig was one of the

ones who did it he was you know I mean I

think it's fair to say he's a respected

appell at court judge um but this is a

cockamamy idea and he was put it's not

like you see Michael luded all over

cable news on a normal basis but he was

a star on cable news Lawrence tribe he's

been been on MSM he's a very hardcore

anti-trump guy um but here's just a

flashback of some of the media and the

experts embracing this wonderful idea

which as I point out while they were

split on just how far they went nine out

of nine did say states are not empowered

by the 14th Amendment to remove alleged

insurrectionists from the ballot watch

this in S8 Colorado is executing its

state rights to decide who should be on

their own ballot grounded in the

Constitutions that language uh in the

Constitution Jim simply could not be any

clearer this is a slam dunk the former

president is not eligible to be

president again Trump incited and

therefore engaged in an armed

Insurrection against the Constitutions

Trump is indeed ineligible to be

president Donald Trump engaged in an

Insurrection against the Constitution

Donald Trump cannot be president for

under the Constitution he cannot be our

president again that engaging an

Insurrection has disqualified himself

from holding any future Federal office

will the Supreme Court agree with

themselves we're confident the Supreme

Court will reject that

claim or not that was courtesy of the

Washington Free Beacon but they're for

our audience both guys are

laughing both lawyers are laughing it is

kind of funny I mean look we'll see

whether those experts now go back in and

say gee even my side ruled against me on

the critical point I mean Dave it was a

resounding

defeat Yeah Boy the hazard of videotape

you know that it looks like me look like

me when I said that the Supreme Court

would deny C in the absolute immunity

case you know so I've been

there it's just there's no getting

around and and that's that's because it

really was kakami I mean it was a real

reach and I forget whether what I found

I remember looking into ludig he's I

think he's more right leaning but he's a

never Trumper he's a never Trumper you

have to when you look at the

conservative leanings of these judges

Mike you have to figure out okay it's

not not enough just to say they're

conservative and therefore I need to

take them seriously on an anti-trump

move you do have to figure out One Step

Beyond that and I'm sorry to make it all

B boil down to politics but I mean in

this case it

does yeah so judge Michael ludik is a

total goofball they he lost his mind

when he got passed over for the Supreme

Court by George W bush I was in the

White House at the time he got mad he

resigned from the bench and he's just

been a bitter washed up loser for years

and years and

years raising his all right go ahead

here I am defending the Federalist

Society Ultra conservative uh judge

judge ludik look here here's the thing

this wasn't a complete victory for Trump

at the Supreme Court in that they did

not address the issue that Trump wanted

them to address which is whether or not

he engaged in Insurrection they left

that to the lower courts and by doing

that the finding from the lower courts

is that Trump did did engage in

Insurrection so where ludic and others

are coming from is that if you did

engage in Insurrection the plain meaning

of the text of the 14th Amendment

section three says you are disqualified

for running for office so that's where

they came from but the Supreme Court

decided to abandon their textualist

Roots originalist roots and decide to

rule um on principles of federalism and

just common sense that we don't want 50

states to go in 50 different directions

there would be chaos all right here's a

little sample of that Point not to lump

you in with these people Dave uh from

reacting to this decision this is per uh

given to us by the media Research Center

saw three watch this is actually what I

had been concerned about I had been

concerned that it should it go to the

Supreme Court they would rule this way

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad my next

guest says Donald Trump is still an oath

breaking insurrectionist the court

itself may have overstepped the court

went way further than it needed to go

our colleague Melissa Murray has called

this Supreme Court the YOLO Court the

criticism of the court is that they're

playing interference not since Bush Vore

we've seen a court is had this many

opportunities to interfere in the

election the headline here is this that

this is a unanimous ruling but if you

scratch the surface just a little this

is a 5 to four ruling I'm part of it

this is actually a 5 to4 decision it's 5

to four Trump will take this spin it

spread the misinformation disinformation

on it you can't save a people from

themselves whatever happened to Larry

sabido remember him Mike Davis back in

the fox days he was like a normal

pollster that you could rely on for down

the-middle analysis now he's gone

hardcore never Trump um but look I

understand the five4 argument for the

reasons that we kicked the show off with

but on the core point it was 90 and I

wonder whether these same people are

going to be so disgusted with the court

and ready to dismantle it after the

court is likely Dave to rule against

Trump and his claims that everything he

did in office is immune from prosecution

when we get that decision in May or

June they're going to rule against him

on that but they're going to drag their

feet and that will infuriate my

colleagues and I understand that because

if they continue to delay this matter

the trial in DC may not ever happen so

that's what they most about what are you

saying that the only people who dragged

their feet were Jack Smith and the

justice department

as soon as that they filed the charges

Trump started to challenge it legally

now it's gone up Supreme Court took it

they could have kicked it to next fall

they didn't have to put it on this term

but they took it on this term they're

not dragging anything well compared to

what they did here in the Colorado case

Megan where they expedited matters to

give this Trump a decision within weeks

to make sure it was done before super

Tuesday where they even issued an

opinion on a Monday which was so rare

and then you compare it to intervening

in Jack Smith's case where they first

said no we're not going to intervene in

December no no no we're not going to get

in and and bigot because Jack was trying

to skip the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

that's the only reason they said not yet

they said you you got out a turn you got

to go to the middle guys before you come

to us which Mike every Supreme Court

would most likely prefer because then

you get a whole decision with reasoning

from the lower court that you get to

kick off the argument with it wasn't

unusual at all for the court to say slow

down now you going back you do it before

this court of appeals and then you come

to

us well yeah I mean of course they have

to decide this Colorado disqualification

case as quickly as they can because

these states need to print ballots right

and they need to print ballots and

figure out whether Trump is going to be

on the ballots or not going to be on the

ballot on this presidential immunity

they are deciding this case in like

warped speed they did they they sent

this case for oral argument in April

they're not allowing Trump to see on Bon

review with the DC circuit they're not

waiting until to to tier oral argument

in this case next fall or even next

winter as they should that would be the

normal course they're very much

Expediting this and there's no need for

them to expedite this because it's not

relevant to the election whether Trump

is on the ballot is relevant to the

election whether Trump the Colorado

election

today yes I mean look I I would say this

about presidential immunity I know you

guys both disagree with me on this but I

seem to have a track record on this the

Supreme Court is going to find that the

president any president is immune from

Criminal prosecution for his official

acts then the Supreme Court is going to

remand this case to DC Obama judge Tanya

Shuan to hold an evidentiary hearing on

what Trump did allegedly did on on

January 6 that was in his official acts

like you know he was going to fire his

acting attorney general that sounds

pretty presidential to me versus in his

personal capacity and then once they

decide that Trump can appeal that again

because you're dealing with immunity and

so the bottom line is is that there's no

chance this case is going to go to trial

before the election and I would say to

these Democrats boohoo you're going to

actually have to uh vote for the

president of the United States on

November 5th 2024 the oldfashioned way

instead of having your leftwing judges

remove him from The Ballot or throw him

in prison here's um take a listen to Jim

aosta on CNN talking about

how sad this is and how

Trump gets files all these appeals

delays everything like not like a normal

person even though everybody in the

United States who gets convicted or sued

civil and loses has the opportunity to

file an appeal which Jim aosta he should

familiarize himself with a lovely

service known as Google or or any of its

competitors which we're moving to now um

because this is not a special Trump

thing this is called being an American

thing watch this and Jim what do you say

to all those Americans out there who are

watching this who are frustrated and say

you know Trump is getting away with uh

breaking the law that he files appeal

after appeal he tries to delay every

proceeding that's brought against him in

a way that is just just goes against

what our Judicial System should be about

I mean isn't he treated differently than

just about everybody else in this

country I mean just about anybody else