If there was one talking head you might have expected to be ecstatic over the Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Donald Trump from the GOP primary ballot under the terms of the 14th Amendment, it would be Joe Scarborough.
After all, Scarborough has led the liberal-media attack on Trump, incessantly labeling him a fascist, and claiming that if elected he will "execute" as many opponents as possible and end democracy in America.
So it was surprising, to say the least, to witness Scarborough expressing doubts on today's Morning Joe about the Colorado decision.
As he put it to George Conway:
"14th Amendment talks about someone who's committed insurrection against the United States Constitution. Who is the finder of fact of that? People on cable news, judges in Colorado, or does it need to be a jury in Washington D.C.?"
Scarborough's skepticism was obvious in wondering whether the decision should be up to "people on cable news" [such as himself!], or judges in a far-flung state. Or as he put it to David Frum, even more skeptically, whether "judges [should] randomly decide that he's an insurrectionist, or people on cable news shows decide he's an insurrectionist, or does he actually have to be convicted of insurrection by, by federal prosecutors?
Frum dodged Scarborough's question.
Scarborough's skepticism elicited a wry smile from Conway. But the co-founder of the disgraced Lincoln Project unequivocally argued that a conviction on charges of insurrection is not a prerequisite to barring a candidate from office. He noted that it would have been easy for the drafters of the 14th Amendment to have written that anyone "convicted" of insurrection should be barred, but that the Amendment includes no such language.
While MSNBC routinely claims there's "no evidence" of Joe Biden's wrongdoing, Conway insisted there is "very very very strong evidence" Trump's an insurrectionist, based on a Colorado judge that rejected removing Trump from the ballot in November.
Mara Gay of the New York Times editorial board made the befuddling claim that Trump's primary opponents, in saying that voters rather than courts should decide, were somehow aligning themselves with members of the Confederacy after the Civil War. Whatever.
Scarborough began the show by touting "conservatives" like David French and former judge J. Michael Luttig arguing against Trump as they routinely do. He touted "two members of the Federalist Society" pushing this view of the 14th Amendment who have been the toast of the Left since August.
PS: There was what the late Don Imus would have described as a "tension convention" between Scarborough and his wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski on the set this morning. First, Scarborough only grudgingly agreed, at Mika's insistence, to display Asa Hutchinson's statement on the Colorado ruling.
A bit later, as he began to put his question to Frum, Scarborough snapped at Mika: "you don't have to dart your eyes around. You don't have to dart your eyes around." Wishing the Scarborough-Brzezinski household a very Merry Christmas!
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Morning Joe
12/20/23
6:15 am ETJOE SCARBOROUGH: Mara Gay, what do you, what do you say to the,to the Republican candidates' argument that this should be -- the voters should have the say, and not the courts?
MARA GAY: Why are you standing with Confederates who betrayed this country? And this is what they're standing with, is the spirit of those Confederates rather than the Americans who came together after a long and brutal Civil War that was fought to keep the Union together.
And saw, clearly saw a threat in ex-Confederates running for office. So much so that they amended the Constitution to prevent those traitors from running for office. That should send a message that our election system, our electoral system, can be used for nefarious purposes against the democracy itself. It's clear, clear as day.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. So David, David Frum, so the question is, who is the finder of fact that Donald Trump committed insurrection? We, we of course, all believe it. I said -- okay, Mika, you don't have to dart your eyes around.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I was like --
SCARBOROUGH: You don't have to dart your eyes around.
I said on January the seventh Donald Trump should be arrested and, and tried and sent to jail. But the question is, under the law, due process under the law, do judges randomly decide that he's an insurrectionist, or people on cable news shows decide he's an insurrectionist, or does he actually have to be convicted of insurrection by, by federal prosecutors?
DAVID FRUM: These, these Republican candidates are all willing to fight for the silver medal. They're all willing to fight each other. But hey will not stand up to Donald Trump. They're too scared to fight, and therefore they are too weak to win.
. . .
SCARBOROUGH: So George Conway, let me ask you. 14th Amendment talks about someone who's committed insurrection against the United States Constitution. Who is the finder of fact of that? People on cable news? Judges in Colorado? Or does it need to be a jury in Washington, D.C. that is hearing a case on whether Donald Trump committed insurrection against the United States Constitution?
GEORGE CONWAY: Well, as a good, long-time member of the Federalist Society, you have to look at the text of the, of the constitutional provision.
And the constitutional provision says nothing about convictions. They could have easily, when they wrote that provision, said, someone convicted of insurrection cannot be held, cannot hold public office. It does not say that.
And so what that means is, the courts are free to determine on their own, you know, based upon the valid judicial processes,
And what happened here was, there was a five-day trial where Donald Trump got, his lawyers got to participate, and the judge made extensive findings -- a judge that actually kind of ruled for him on a bogus ground, found that he engaged in insurrection. Found this by not just a preponderance of the evidence, which is your lower, your lower basic civil court standard, but by clear and convincing evidence. Which means that it's way more than, you know, more likely than not. It's very, very, very strong evidence. And you don't see the dissents challenging those findings at all.
