Former federal prosecutor Katie Turkowski joins me now.
So, Katie, from a legal perspective,
the decision from the main Secretary of State came without
the former president participating in a hearing of anyway.
What does that say to you?
Well, the decision from Maine was even more egregious than
the one out of Colorado where they held some sort
of sham trial in Maine.
It was a unilateral decision of an executive.
And obviously, I think the Supreme Court will inevitably get
involved with this to clarify the contours and the parameters
of section three of the 14th Amendment,
which has never been analyzed by a court.
So the idea that there's any sort of clear outcome
that that can be analyzed under that section is really
something that's just never been adjudicated,
right? Well, let's take a step back.
How dangerous do you think
that the ruling by the Secretary of State in Maine
as well as the Colorado Supreme Court decision,
how, how dangerous is that,
do you think, for the state of our democracy?
I think it's just a terrible precedent.
And I think it's clear based upon the fact that
all of these states are coming out inconsistently and differently
on this issue,
that this section of the Constitution is not meant to
apply to the presidential to the presidential race,
which is a national race.
It simply can't be because you end up with this
preposterous
split among the states. And so certainly that is why
the Supreme Court's involvement is vital,
crucial and and necessary to stop this from continuing.
Because it it, it cannot be sustained
coming up to an election like this.
Yeah. And President Biden has made the case that voting
for him would save the democracy.
But now you have government,
different government agencies, maybe state or local or federal too,
going after the top opponent,
you know, that would get a condemned if the US
saw it happening in other countries,
be condemned by the US,
you know, is this saving democracy?
Well, I think that the irony of all this cannot
be overstated.
The idea that this all started because there was some
sort of attack on democracy by Trump,
which is now being combated by very egregious and overt
attacks on democracy,
quite literally, I think it's quite clear to to everyone
across the aisle,
whether they're a Trump supporter or not,
this is simply not the process.
And that has nothing to do with even getting into
the factual analysis under whether he could even be disqualified.
I mean, there are so many constitutional issues that it
is very clear that this,
the court will have to clarify that very,
very quickly, I'm sure, but certainly
it's in the in the last three seconds.
I want to get this in.
How quickly should the Supreme Court weigh in on this
and what message should they send in the last 15
seconds?
They need to send a message that this section of
the Constitution is not something that the states can individually
decide.
And I think that that will alleviate most of the
concerns here.
I don't think they'll get into the facts of whether
he committed an insurrection.
I simply think it does not apply to the office
of the presidency.
And the states cannot individually make those determinations without due
process.
Katie, Happy New Year. I appreciate your insight on all
of this very interesting debate.
Happy New Year. Yeah.