HEAR A BIG CASE OUT OF COLORADO. AND WE HAVE REALLY THE MOST NEWS WORTHY GUEST YOU COULD GET. THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE HEARING THIS CHALLENGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP COULD BE ON COLORADO'S BALLOT. WE'RE JOINED BY COLORADO'S SECRETARY OF STATE, THE TOP ELECTIONS OFFICIAL AND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. JENA GRISWOLD, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON "THE BEAT" TONIGHT. >> OF COURSE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON, ARI. >> YOUR REACTION TO THE SUPREME COURT TAKING THIS COLORADO CASE TONIGHT? >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO LOOK AT THIS CASE. ULTIMATELY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHETHER SOMEONE WHO ENGAGES IN INSURRECTION CAN THEN SERVE IN THE HIGHEST POSITION THAT WE HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES. >> YEAH, AND YOU'VE SAID SOME OF THAT BEFORE. YOU'VE REFERRED TO THE IDEA THAT HE HAS ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. AND YET THERE'S SO MANY IMPORTANT DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS HERE, NO MATTER WHAT ONE THINKS ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR CANDIDATE. AND SO JUST CONFIRMING UP TOP, DONALD TRUMP HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF INSURRECTION BY A JURY, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND SOMETHING THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON WAS YOUR ASSERTION THAT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WAS NECESSARY. BECAUSE HISTORICALLY, THAT IS NOT HOW SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT HAS WORKED. HUNDREDS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS AND OFFICIALS WERE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR UNDER THIS PROCEDURE WITHOUT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. AND DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN AFFORDED DUE PROCESS. HE HAD A TRIAL BY A DISTRICT COURT IN COLORADO. HE THEN HAD A TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. AND ARI, I THINK IT'S NOTEWORTHY THAT TRUMP DID NOT SHOW UP. YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU ARE -- YOUR CANDIDACY WAS BEING CHALLENGED IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU WOULD AT LEAST SHOW UP TO DEFEND YOURSELF. BUT HE DECIDED NOT TO. OF COURSE, HE HAD HIS LAWYERS THERE ARGUING ON HIS BEHALF. BUT DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN AFFORDED DUE PROCESS, AND THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OR DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT. >> SO LET'S EXPLORE SEVERAL OF THOSE POINTS. THE CIVIL WAR, OF COURSE, WAS THE ORIGINAL IMPETUS FOR THIS. FOLKS WHO ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN ARMED BATTLE, WAR, AND WHAT MANY VIEWED AS REBELLION, IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE DID THAT DAY, WHATEVER ANYONE THINKS OF IT. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE HE WASN'T CONVICTED. HE ALSO HASN'T BEEN CHARGED. THERE IS A FEDERAL INSURRECTION STATUTE. WHEN YOU GO INTO COURT, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE JUDGES ASK ABOUT, AS YOU KNOW. DONALD TRUMP, EVEN BY JACK SUBMIT, WASN'T CHARGED WITH THAT. SO IS THIS REALLY A FAIR AND GOOD WAY FORWARD IF HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN CHARGED LET ALONE CONVICTED OF THE VERY FEDERAL STATUTE THAT IS RELATED TO THE INSURRECTION THAT YOU SAY HE COMMITTED? >> THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT SOMEONE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM FURTHER OFFICE IF THEY ARE CONVICTED FOR INSURRECTION. IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY, "ENGAGE." ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION OR REBELLION. SO THAT IS THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. THERE ARE ONLY TWO COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. AND THOSE TWO COURTS DETERMINED THAT HE DID. ULTIMATELY, THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS -- >> WELL -- >> -- BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. >> WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL, THOUGH. I'M GOING TO LET YOU RESPOND. WE SHOULD BE QUITE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. WHATEVER ANYONE THINKS OF DONALD TRUMP AND THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE, HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION, HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICT OF INSURRECTION IN ANY CRIMINAL SENSE. IF JUDGE IN A DIFFERENT PROCESS ANNOUNCE THEIR VIEWS, THAT'S FINE, WHAT THEIR VIEWS ARE. BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SAY HERE ON TV OR TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE'S BEEN CONVICTED OF INSURRECTION. HE HASN'T. THOSE ARE THEIR VIEWS ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK HAPPENED. I DID WANT TO READ FOR YOU FROM THE DISSENTS AS WELL IN THE CASE AND GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU TIME HERE. AS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE JUSTICES MADE THE VERY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO RICOCHET PROBABLY IN THE SUPREME COURT. READING FROM SOME OF THE KEY POINTS, THEY STATE THAT THE BALLOT LAW WAS NOT ENACTED IN COLORADO TO DECIDE IF A CANDIDATE ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. THAT THE HEARING THAT DISQUALIFIED TRUMP WAS ACTUALLY THIS LOW 51% EVIDENCE STANDARD, WHICH IS NOT THE WAY TO ADJUDICATE SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE. AS FOR DUE PROCESS, ONE OF THE JUDGES ARGUED IT WAS REALLY MAKESHIFT PROCEEDINGS THAT DIDN'T HAVE DISCOVERY, SUBPOENAS, WITNESSES, OR A FAIR TRIAL, AND THUS IT WAS REALLY MASQUERADING AS A RUN OF THE MILL STATE ELECTION CODE CLAIM. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE CONCERNS OF THOSE JUDGES THAT THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT, AND IF I CAN GUESS, YOU AND I AND MANY OF OUR VIEWERS AGREE THIS IS IMPORTANT. BUT IT'S PRECISELY BECAUSE IT'S TOO IMPORTANT TO ADJUDICATE IN A REAL CRIMINAL TRIAL WHAT HAPPENED WITH JANUARY 6th, TO JUST HAVE SOME JUDGES KIND OF MAKE IT UP OVER A COUPLE OF WEEKS IN A PROCEEDING THAT DOESN'T HAVE BASIC RULES OF EVIDENCE? >> WELL, I HAVE TO STRONGLY PUSH BACK ON YOU. I THINK THE JUDGES IN COLORADO ARE SERIOUS JUDGE JUDGES THAT FOLLOW THE LAW, PROCEDURES, AND RULES OF EVIDENCE. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY GAVE DONALD TRUMP A FAIR TRIAL, AND IT'S ON HIM IF HE DECIDED NOT TO SHOW UP. AND I'LL PUSH BACK ONE OTHER TIME AND SAY, AGAIN, HISTORICALLY, A CONVICTION WAS NOT NEEDED. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECIDES TO -- >> I'LL LET YOU FINISH, BUT FOR CIVIL WAR COMBATANTS? >> WELL, THIS PROCEDURE OF DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT ONLY USED DURING POST-CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. IT'S BEEN USED VARIOUS OTHER TIMES. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT A PROVISION THAT IS NORMALLY USED BECAUSE WE USUALLY DO NOT HAVE FOLKS TRYING TO ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION AND RUN FOR OFFICE. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR INITIAL QUESTION, DO I AGREE WITH THE DISSENT, NO, I DO NOT. IN COLORADO, WE PERIODICALLY LOOK AND DISQUALIFY CANDIDATES FOR NOT BEING ELIGIBLE. IF A CANDIDATE ISN'T A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, THEY HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM THE COLORADO BALLOT VARIOUS TIMES. IF CANDIDATES ARE NOT QUALIFIED UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, WE DO NOT PUT THEM ON THE BALLOT. BUT ULTIMATELY, THESE QUESTIONS WILL GO BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I DO THINK THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT GOT IT RIGHT, AND THIS IS A BIG PRECEDENT FOR THE COUNTRY. SO JUST LIKE YOU, WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAYS. >> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT'S GREAT TO KIND OF TALK IT OUT AND LEARN WHAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS ON THAT. YOU'RE CERTAINLY VERY EDGEABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS, IF THAT WERE THE OUTCOME, WHAT YOU SAY YOU THINK WOULD BE BETTER, WHAT'S TO STOP JUDGES IN TEXAS FROM HOLDING A PROCEEDING OVER A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND DETERMINING THAT OTHER PEOPLE ENGAGED IN WHAT THEY CALL INSURRECTION THROUGH THEIR JUDICIAL PROCESS, WITHOUT HEARING WITNESSES, WITHOUT HAVING A CRIMINAL STANDARD OF EVIDENCE, WITHOUT ALLOWING SUBPOENAS TO GET THE OTHER SIDE -- WHAT'S TO STOP THIS, WHICH EVEN IF PEOPLE VIEW IT AS A POTENTIALLY WELL-MEANING EFFORT, FROM CREATING ANOTHER ROUND OF LEGALIZED CHAOS IN OUR ELECTIONS? I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF BULLET POINTS ON THAT AND LET YOU RESPOND. BECAUSE YOU CAN IMAGINE THESE CRITICISMS COMING UP IN ANOTHER AREA. AGAIN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE DISSENT HERE SAYS THE COLORADO BALLOT LAW MANDATES TWO DEADLINES IN THIS CASE. NEITHER WERE HONORED. THE COURT SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS FOR TWO WEEKS AND THE MAJORITY ARGUES THAT THE LOWER COURT JUST SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED, WHICH IF TRUE, HE SAYS, BASICALLY RENDERS THE STATUTE'S FIVE DAY AND 48-HOUR REQUIREMENTS MEANINGLESS. GOING ON TO SAY SOMETHING I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY AS A SOCIETY WITH THE RUE OF LAW, "EVEN IF WE'RE CONVINCED A CANDIDATE COMMITTED HORRIBLE ACTS, THERE MUST BE DUE PROCESS BEFORE WE CAN DECLARE THAT INDIVIDUAL DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE." ON A MATTER AS WEIGHTY AS INSURRECTION, AND THIS IS A FIELD THAT I'VE SUEDED, IT DID NOT LOOK LIKE FAIR DUE PROCESS TO THIS CANDIDATE. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BE FAIR, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW PEOPLE FEEL OTHERWISE ABOUT THE CANDIDATE. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE QUOTES AND THE CONCERN THIS COULD RUN AMOK ON BOTH SIDES ENDLESSLY IF THIS DECISION WERE TO HOLD? >> WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE ON THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE. UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT, THESE ARE CIVIL TRIALS. DONALD TRUMP WAS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS. AND IF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DISAGREES, THEY CAN SAY SO. I DO THINK HE WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN SAYING A JUDICIAL PROCESS WAS NOT FAIR. THE COLORADO COURTS ACTED FAIRLY. THERE WERE WITNESSES. THERE WAS A STANDARD OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE. AND DONALD TRUMP HAD DUE PROCESS. NOW, WE CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT -- >> YOU WOULDN'T SAY HE HAD THE DUE PROCESS OF LIKE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT, WOULD YOU? >> NO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL CASE. THERE'S DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR A CRIMINAL CASE THAN A CIVIL CASE. BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY DANGEROUS TO SAY THAT THE COURTS IN COLORADO DID NOT DO AN EFFICIENT JOB THAT RESPECTS THE LAW AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. AND I HIGHLY DISAGREE WITH YOU SAYING THIS SETS A DOWNWARD SPIRAL PRECEDENT. IF A CANDIDATE OR SOMEONE WANTING TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN ENGAGES IN INSURRECTION, WE NEED A COURT TO ADJUDICATE THOSE QUESTIONS AND DO IT LOOKING AT EVIDENCE, LOOKING AT WITNESSES, HAVING A STANDARD OF PROCEDURE, JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN COLORADO. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS CASE SHOULD NOTBE ADJUDICATED. DONALD TRUMP IS A DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY, I BELIEVE THAT. HE IS A DANGER TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THERE IS CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ABOUT THE ACTS THAT I BELIEVE HE ENGAGED IN, AND TWO COLORADO COURTS DO ALSO. NOW, THERE CAN BE DISAGREEMENT, BUT IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT, WE FOLLOW A JUDICIAL PROCESS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. AND ULTIMATELY, MY JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW,
