Will Donald Trump be removed from the ballot by the Supreme Court of the United States What will Scottus decide? Well in this video, I'm going to provide my legal analysis because well, let's just put it this way: I Went to my boy Le legal with my Gizzy sweater and I'm like ah, there it is. The Supreme Court will decide Trump's fate. There it is there is the video we're going to learn his perspective on the Colorado case from. But boy I was sly disappointed.

not because the editing wasn't excellent as usual. In fact, the editing was delicious and beautiful. But it wasn't about the Colorado case, it was about immunity and the latest updates on Judge Shins case which wasn't the Colorado case. So maybe because they work so darn hard on editing and content production, they don't have their piece out just yet, so you're stuck with me Kevin wearing gazes of meat.

And and in this video, we are going to refer to the three decisions that ehack outlines that the Supreme Court will face and the conclusion of what this could potentially mean for Donald Trump. So first, the Supreme Court is going to have to decide whether or not to hear the Colorado case. They likely will, because if they don't they will tacitly be admitting that the Colorado Court was correct. The Colorado Supreme Cour Court of course, decided to uphold the lower District Court ruling that Trump did conduct or engage in insurrectionist activity, but then overruled the lower Court's denial that Donald Trump was an officer subject to section three of the 14th.

Amendment the Supreme Court of Colorado decided that Donald Trump is an officer of the United States And so clearly we believe that Scotus the United States Supreme Court will end up hearing the case of Donald Trump and whether or not he will be on the ballot. And so what I was curious about is what are they going to face? What kind of legal research will they face? And in my opinion, here's a good little preview of something that they're going to have to decide on. First, we know that section three provides that no person shall basically become president or act as an officer of the United States if you have previously engaged in Insurrection. And so there is some case law on this, though Unfortunately, the Constitution via Article 2 the Executive Branch section of the Constitution doesn't actually give us an exact definition of what an officer is.

All we have to rely on is case law. We have a bunch of case law on this which I have on screen here. You could also view it at Ec.com I'll link the exact post directly below, but you can just go to Ec.com and you'll see it there there. So United States V Maurice of 1823.

We've got the United States versus Germain of 1878, Buckley versus Valo of 1978 and Frag versus Commissioner of the IRS in 1990 affirmed by Luca versus SEC 2018 and these cases to save your time and bottom line it a little bit told us the following: Is someone an officer? Well, they would be deemed an officer if they are entrusted with a duty via oath rather than contract well. In this case, it is likely that the President would be deemed as somebody who is authorized to act. and Uh operates through the rules prescribed by the government through oath. After all, the President does not sign a contract like an employment contract or employment memorandum employment law which are commonly used in States like California.

Instead, they swear to uphold the Constitution. Now that likely means the President would be considered an officer under this qualification, but there are multiple qualifications here. I'm going to skip the second one for a moment. We're going to go to the third of four here.

Do they executive? Authority that has significant impact on the laws of the United States Or is the officer Uh Behavior Or the Or: are the officer's behaviors or actions simply investigative and a informative? Well, in this case, it's pretty clear that the President does not operate simply to provide research or investigative support. Instead, they actually do have significant Authority and impact on the government and the operations of the government. So this would likely be a yes. Do they also have significant Duty and discretion? and Via simply the executive powers act.

This was probably a slam dunk yes as well. Now, the second of these four qualifications is probably the one where the Supreme Court is going to have to spend some time debating. does the President or is any President deemed to have a continuing and permanent position in contrast to the case law that talks of positions being occasional and intermittent. Well, obviously here, position of the government that are elected are by Nature occasional.

They are not necessarily intermittent. they're permanent and continuing during a term. But at the end of a term or impeachment, let's say, or the removal from office for any other reason, they're permanent within that term. So this one could go either way.

Now, my belief is that the President would likely be considered an officer, so that's not really going to help Donald Trump. But the Supreme Court's decision number three could actually help Donald Trump see decision number one is just to hear the case. Decision number two is to decide. Is the President an officer and based on what we're hearing here and the citations that we have here which you could review and preview and all of this yourself.

Uh, it's all linked on Ec.com Totally free website for reviewing this information. The real question and defense for Donald Trump will likely come from question number three, which is did Donald Trump engage in Insurrection Okay, well, what we have from the Supreme Court of Colorado is this quote right here from The Trial of Caster Hanway for treason in 1851. The Supreme Court in Colorado decided to Simply quote that it is not necessary to prove the individual accused was directly essentially involved in the violence. Basically, you don't even have to be present in treason to be found guilty of pre treason.

You simply have to have some kind of knowledge or uh, aiding in the Furnishing of carrying out of an Insurrection by others to be guilty of treason. Basically, they go as far as saying that in treason there are no accessories to a crime. Everybody who is involved in treason is a traitor and treasonist. Okay, that is the snippet that the Supreme Court of Colorado used against Donald Trump.

But wait a second. There are 922 pages of archives on this 1851 case, including literal transcripts of the case. And listen to some items at the bottom of this case Law at the bottom. Specifically on page 921, you're going to find in order uh to have a conviction of the crime of tree reason, the defendant must have intended to Levy war against the United States or the overt acts have been committed by himself and others in pursuance of such conspiracy or pre-concert for that purpose.

Okay, that's that's a whole mouthful. In fact, you could see this piece right here. I linked it. It's called what is treason and if you just click on it, you'll literally get the whole 922 pages and you could flip through the intended to act uh, uh or intended to Levy War section here.

But here. as you can see, in order to a conviction of the crime of treason, it's kind of wordy, right, but this is where we see it here. Basically, the defendant must have intended to Levy war against the United States. All right, Well, that is potentially a very easy out for the United States Supreme Court to say.

Well, we don't think Donald Trump intended to Levy War. Maybe that's what it came across as to some people, but we don't believe he intended to. Therefore, Donald Trump remains on the ballot. That's what I believe the Supreme Court will say.

Let me rephrase that very very clearly I believe that the Supreme Court will say Donald Trump's name on the ballot will remain so. That way the people can decide whether or not to vote for Donald Trump or not and he can stand as a person for American to decide do they want to vote for him or not I Believe that will happen because the Supreme Court will look at the same case that the Colorado Supreme Court said or used as a citation except the Supreme Court of the United States will scroll a little bit further and say whoa, whoa whoa Whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. We don't actually believe that Donald Trump intended to Levy war against the United States see the context or case law goes even further and says the levying of war against the United States is not necessarily to be judged by the number of troops, but there must actually be conspiracy to resist by force. How are you going to argue that Donald Trump had the conspiracy to by force or through the intimidation of numbers conduct Insurrection to overthrow the government or to nul ify some law of the United States Well of course those who do not want to see Donald Trump win will say well. Donald Trump tried to nullify the certification of the election correct, but did Donald Trump commit conspiracy to nullify the certification of the election? Did he intend to Levy war against the United States That is going to be the big question question now.

I think that's probably Donald Trump's best defense I Don't think Donald Trump's best defense is saying hey, we weren't fighting with intimidation by numbers or Force of Arms because all you have to do is show all of the weapons the Secret Service confiscated for Donald Trump's rally and then all the tens of thousands of people who were outside of the Secret Service screened event that also potentially had weapons that were later found on the ground or through arrests. uh at the capital. uh Donald Trump Can obviously make the argument like hey, I said peacefully protest but this is probably not going to be a strong argument for the Trump side. I think those are weak and I don't think the Supreme Court here wants to come across this week I Think the best defense for Donald Trump is the simplest.

Did Donald Trump or did he not intend to Levy war against the United States I believe the easiest out for the Supreme Court to allow voters to decide Donald Trump's fate is simply saying: look, Not only do we not think Donald Trump intended to Levy war against the United States, but we actually believe that Donald Trump was fighting for the United States rather than against the United States or that he believes that right. Remember the actual case law What it says right here: it says that the defendant must have intended to Levy war against the United States but a supporter of Donald Trump could easily argue Donald Trump did not believe he was fighting against the United States. He actually believed he was fighting for the United States That one word could make Donald Trump stay on the ballot. That one word: his belief that he was fighting for the United States versus against the United States.

And again, this is the same exact case law that the Colorado Supreme Court kind of Cherry Picked their choice on now In Fairness. The Colorado Supreme Court does try to address this. They suggest that President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence on January 6th. But wait a minute.

I Covered. Live All of January 6th Right here. Look at this: Capital Riot prootest Insurrection Full live documentary Two years ago. 10 hours, 10 hours long.

We covered every single word of that now famous rally. But what is the Colorado Supreme Court Not make a single mention of this important line Right here. Slated Lawfully slated I Know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today We will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but peacefully that that's going to be a piece of the puzzle that the Supreme Court is likely heavily to weigh their decision on.

Now Obviously, I'm not a Supreme Court Justice But I'll tell you when we look at this case law and we look at did Donald Trump have the intention to Levy war against the United States through an actual resistance or intimidation by numbers. Would these things be true? Would there be intimidation by numbers or resistance by actual Force If he said peacefully or will the Supreme Court argue? Well, his other actions outweighed the phrase peacefully. That's the big TBD and I Believe this is the debate the Supreme Court will be having. If you like this analysis, consider subscribing.

Go check out Eack. It's always going to be free For free. You don't have to sign up nothing, just Ec.com You can see all my market research on a daily basis and my commentary. We separate facts with green check marks from little yellow emojis for things that are opinions.

so we just make it straightforward to you what's fact and data and evidence versus opinion. So anyway, that's my take. Let me know what you think in the comments down below. Thanks so much Bye Why not advertise these things that you told us here? I Feel like nobody else knows about this? We'll We'll try a little advertising and see how it goes.

Congratulations man, you have done so much. People love you people. look up to you Kevin PA there financial analyst and YouTuber meet Kevin Always great to get your take even though I'm a licensed financial adviser, real estate broker, and becoming a stock broker. This video is neither personalized Financial Advice nor real estate advice for you.

It is not tax, legal, or otherwise personalized advice tailor to you. This video provides generalized perspective, information and commentary. Any thirdparty content I show should not be deemed endorsed by me. This video is not and shall never be deemed reasonably sufficient information for the purpose of evaluating a security or investment decision.

Any or promoted products are either paid affiliations or products or Services which we may benefit from I personally operate and actively managed ETF and hold long positions in various Securities potentially including those mentioned in this video. However, I have no relationship to any issuers other than house Act nor am I presently acting as a market maker.