Hey everyone. How's it going? Let's see Connor saying good morning. It is it.

Not here.

So Thomas is here and he wants to talk about politics this year specifically

maybe some election intrigue and hopefully I can

inject something in there and make this a good time.

So what's on your mind, man?

I think what should be on everybody's mind is there's something really clumsy

Trump from the ballot. I mean not just because it smacks a desperation to

employ the impeachment power that way and subsequently do you try to find some

backdoor way to disqualify. I mean this is not a new development but this Colorado decision is nothing short of bizarre and

I'm not sure people understand how bizarre it is. If you read the impeachment

clauses quite obviously it's tailored to remove a sitting president who's engaged in overreach, which can't really be defined unless it's actually underway.

I mean the way it would develop, you know, post 14th Amendment would be you know a president essentially subverting

due process by you know by refusing to abide you you know, an electoral decision in favor another candidate or

declaring a state of emergency for northern purpose other than to, you know, permanently kind of guarantee his own incumbency.

But this Colorado court claimed

that Donald Trump was

as defined by the 14th Amendment, which is one of the Civil War amendments.

And obviously, what was in the contemplation of the drafts

of the amendment 14 was that this qualified people who served the Confederacy and executive roles from the government because there's an inherent conflict of interest there, because they've literally been at war with the government of the union.

Okay? There's a logical fallacy if you're going to claim that the president of the United States was engaged in sedition

if you're engaged in sedition your opposing force is the government you're at

...