Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
From LeverNews.com — Lever Time is the flagship podcast from the investigative news outlet The Lever. Hosted by award-winning journalist, Oscar-nominated writer, and Bernie Sanders' 2020 speechwriter David Sirota, Lever Time features exclusive reporting from The Lever’s newsroom, high-profile guest interviews, and expert analysis from the sharpest minds in media and politics.
David Sirota: [00:00:00] Hey, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Lever Time. I'm David Sirota. On today's show, we're going to be talking about former President Donald Trump and the lawsuit attempting to prevent him from appearing on the ballot in this November's presidential election.
Now that Trump has won the Iowa caucus in an apparent landslide, it's seeming more and more likely that he'll be the Republican nominee for president.
But recently, A lawsuit here in Colorado challenges his right to appear on the ballot, arguing that his behavior on January 6th was the kind of insurrection barred by the U. S. Constitution. So now, it's going to be up to the U. S. Supreme Court to decide whether Trump can legally run for president, and whether states can bar him from the ballot.
For today's interview, I spoke with a [00:01:00] plaintiff in this Colorado lawsuit who breaks down the entire case against Trump. For our paid subscribers, we're also always dropping bonus episodes into our Lever Premium podcast feed. Last week, we published our interview with journalist and sportswriter Matt Brown about how the private equity industry could soon be getting its claws into college football.
If you're a fan of college football who cares about the integrity of your favorite team, you should definitely check out this interview, which goes into detail about how Wall Street could potentially change how the entire game works.
If you want access to our premium content, head over to levernews. com and click the subscribe button in the top right to become a supporting subscriber. That gives you access to the Lever Premium podcast feed, exclusive live events, even more in depth reporting, and you'll be directly supporting the investigative journalism that we do here at The Lever.
Alright, we're going to get right into our main story today about Donald Trump and the state based lawsuit attempting to stop him from running for president.[00:02:00]
This past Monday night was the Iowa Caucus, the first competition in the Republican primary races. If the Iowa Caucus sets the tone for the coming months, then it looks like Trump's momentum may not be stopped. This week, he won over 51 percent of the vote. of the caucus vote, a real landslide victory there in Iowa.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed in second with 21%, and former Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley came in third with 19%. And just a reminder that Trump managed to accomplish his landslide victory without appearing in a single Republican primary debate. or not Trump will be stopped by voters at the ballot box There are some now trying to stop him from appearing on the ballot at all Legal challenges to Trump's campaign have been filed in more than 30 different states, mostly pursued under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, otherwise known as the Insurrection Clause, which bars someone from running for public office if they've [00:03:00] engaged in insurrection against the United States.
Now, most states legal challenges have been rejected, but in Colorado, Trump faces a ruling that allows him to be removed from the state's ballot, which could set a precedent for other states. Now, the US Supreme Court. has agreed to take up the case, which will ultimately determine whether Trump can be disqualified in Colorado and effectively in other states.
A decision from the U. S. Supreme Court is expected shortly after arguments are heard on February 8th. So for today's interview, I spoke with Krista Kafer. She is one of the plaintiffs in that Colorado lawsuit. Krista is a writer, a columnist for the Denver Post, and this is an important detail, a lifelong Republican and a conservative.
but that didn't stop her from joining the case with the hopes of keeping Donald Trump out of the White House. I spoke with Krista about why she got involved in this case, what principles and [00:04:00] precedents are at issue, and how she thinks the Supreme Court will ultimately rule. I also asked her if these legal challenges may have the unintentional side effect of empowering Trump with his own base, and if defeating him legally Is enough to defeat Trumpism for the long haul.
Hey Krista, how you doing?
Krista Kafer: doing great. How are you? I see the poster of your marvelous movie in the background.
David Sirota: Yes. Thank you. Yes. That's that's one of my keepsakes that I keep here in my, in my little cave where I do my work. let's talk about. The court case that you're at the center of a few weeks ago, the Colorado Supreme Court declared that former President Donald Trump is not eligible to run for reelection for the presidency, and they removed him from our ballot here in Colorado.
Now, you're a plaintiff in this lawsuit, which was pursued under the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Before we get into the details of the case, let's start with a little bit about your [00:05:00] background and why you decided to participate in this lawsuit.
Krista Kafer: My friend Mario Nicholas, a former Republican, he contacted me and he said, Hey, we're, we're, we're pursuing an interesting legal case. And would you take a look at it? See what you think. And if you'd like to join us. We'd love to have you. And so I read through, it was about 120 pages, and I thought about it, I knew that there had been some legal scholars at the Federalist Society, Bon and Paulson, who had written at length earlier in the year saying that the 14th Amendment, the third clause, applied in this situation.
14th Amendment, but we usually stop about a paragraph in, and we're like, oh, that's great. But, turns out there's quite a bit more to it and part of it is to prevent something like the Civil War from happening again. To prevent people who had taken an oath to the Constitution from violating that oath if perchance they didn't like the election [00:06:00] results, which is basically what happened in 1860.
A group of people said, we don't like the fact that Lincoln won, we're, we're out of here. And, the people who took an oath, the former senators, congressmen, Former, even state, state level officials, if they had taken that oath, once the country was reunited, they could not then run for, for presidency or, uh, any position really, unless they were given amnesty by Congress.
So somebody who had a lot of contrition, they knew what they had done was wrong, they could be allowed. But there were still people at the time that really wanted. Um, and keeping those people out of power was really important, at least until people ran out of patients with reconstruction and then those people got back in and then we got the black codes and, and it took another hundred years to develop any kind of equality. If something is on the books though, in the constitution, it's, it's there for a reason. And if we decide that we don't [00:07:00] like it anymore, there's a couple of different processes to amend it, to take it out. But you can't just say, oh, that doesn't apply anymore. It applies until it's removed. Now, how it applies is something that is up to the courts and has been since John Marshall made that a court responsibility shortly after the nation's founding.
So I read through it. I thought this looks, this looks like something that I could, I could get behind. And then I thought to myself just wanting, you know, just saying that something is a good idea that you could get behind it is not really enough. If you are in a position to do the right thing, You should do the right thing.
And so I put my name on it.
David Sirota: Okay, so the let's get into some of the details of the lawsuit from your perspective, tell us. what the central allegations are in the lawsuit and what you think about the Colorado Supreme Supreme Court's ruling on those assertions.
Krista Kafer: So we know that, that president [00:08:00] Trump engaged in insurrection and according to the words of the constitution, what they meant back in the day when it was passed 14th amendment.
We know that insurrection meant. Simply, the, the, the attempt to stop the lawful, uh, transfer of power, the attempt to, uh, subvert an election would be a good example. It didn't have to be full on rebellion. And it didn't even have to be the taking up of arms. Simply the inciting, the, the provide, provision of comfort and aid, the inflaming of a crowd to take up arms against their own government, that that qualified as insurrection.
And so, when we look at what happened with, with, with Donald Trump, he lost the election, rather than concede it and move on, perhaps to run again, like Grover Cleveland, he decided that he would. Concoct lies, lies in fact that put election workers into harm's way. He pushed those lies for two months. The lie that the election had been stolen, that there had [00:09:00] been widespread fraud.
And even though every journalist, every, every think tank person, every secretary of state, every election worker looked everywhere for fraud. They could not find it because it didn't exist. And yet he continued to push that narrative. Eventually, you have thousands of people showing up to hear his speech.
He pushes it again. We have to fight. We have to make Congress do quote unquote the right thing. What he wanted was for that mob to move down to our Capitol and to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power by disrupting the certification of that vote. And it should not, it should not have surprised him. It should not surprise anybody that fighting words sometimes lead to fighting and some of them.
Took up arms. Yeah, there wasn't pistols and, and, uh, and cannons, but makeshift weapons. They, they injured officers, they broke into our Capitol, and they did disrupt, albeit temporarily, the peaceful transfer of power. [00:10:00] That, under any definition, is the definition of insurrection. And a person who has taken an oath of office, taken an oath to our Constitution, and then inflames a mob To stop the peaceful transfer of power that person is not eligible to run under the constitution
David Sirota: Now the 14th Amendment, when you read it, it's pretty crystal clear on almost all of what you just said. It's very simple. It's very straightforward about the eligibility and ineligibility when it comes to somebody who has committed, uh, insurrection. One of the arguments against the Colorado Supreme Court did in.
In its ruling saying that Trump, uh, had essentially, uh, violated this part of the 14th amendment, one of the arguments is, is that how do we actually legally define insurrection and beyond that, [00:11:00] Trump. The argument goes, was not given the opportunity to introduce, uh, real evidence, uh, really get due process of law to make his argument that what he did, uh, wasn't insurrection or didn't rise to the level of the insurrection, term invoked in the 14th Amendment.
So I guess the, the question for, for you and for the, for the plaintiffs in this case is. What do you say to that? What do you say to those who are saying, look, everything you said about what Trump did may be true on its face. We, he did this, he gave this speech, he incited, et cetera, et cetera. But that because he has not been convicted in a federal court of insurrection, because he was not given a.
jury trial or any kind of process really to defend himself in court and essentially make the argument that he didn't commit [00:12:00] insurrection because those things didn't happen. This case does not have merit. What's your response to that?
Krista Kafer: So, in terms of definition, we do know from, if we look back in time, if we look at newspaper articles that were written at the time, if we look at dictionaries that were written at the time, there are definitions of insurrection. Back then, it could be something as small as a, uh, an elected official writing a letter to the editor saying, we need to succeed.
We need to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It didn't have to be the taking up of arms, right? So we can look at old definitions to figure out what these words meant when they meant, when they, when they were written. As far as due process goes, he had his day in court. He had three lawyers, two of them that I know, Jeffrey Blue and Scott Gessler, both good attorneys.
They, they well represented him. They had their own witnesses. They had a lot of Amiga briefs that were written on their behalf. there was definitely due process. [00:13:00] Spent, you know, I don't know how many hours working on her decision after seeing an entire week of testimony As well as of reading all of the things that were turned in for her And then at the colorado supreme court level when I attended that the justices asked really great questions On both sides, so he did get his day in court And we had to remind people this is not a criminal trial.
This isn't about, uh, you know, you're, you're going to go to jail because you did this. This is about eligibility to run for office. And so if we look at other cases where somebody who. Was or was not eligible to be on the ballot. Somebody asserted that they were not. They ended up going to, uh, ended up being a trial of sorts.
It wasn't a criminal trial. It was simply a question of eligibility. And so he's, he's gotten his day in court. I just don't think he likes the answer that the court gave.
David Sirota: But I'll push back a bit in that the argument [00:14:00] has been put forth that if he hasn't yet been, or perhaps is never convicted. of insurrection that allowing the Colorado Supreme Court decision to stand creates a kind of situation where other states could invoke insurrection without A criminal conviction, uh, could invoke that term to keep anybody they want off the ballot.
I mean, we're sitting here right now on Oklahoma lawmaker as an example recently said, Oh, we're going to, you know, I'm going to, uh, we're going to deny Joe Biden a right to the Oklahoma ballot. I guess the, the, the point is, is that if there isn't a clear legal definition. of insurrection. I mean, there's right.
And these are two different things. There's like, did he engage in insurrection as we [00:15:00] understand it as, you know, regular human beings or in the parlance of our times? I think that's I think it's pretty obvious that it was certainly insurrection or insurrection adjacent. But there's a difference between that and and a legal term of art in the Constitution.
And I just wonder what you say to those who are fearful that if, if there isn't a more clear delineated, this is what insurrection is, AKA he was convicted in a court previous to this, before this constitutional issue was invoked, that you open a Pandora's box of anyone being able to invoke this at any time for any reason
to keep anybody off the ballot.
Krista Kafer: You know, I think it's an, it's an understandable objection. I remember I was a congressional staffer back in the late 90s when Clinton was impeached. And one of the arguments back then was that because there was not, you know, a very strong um, Transcribed definition around impeachment that by impeaching somebody for perjury [00:16:00] over basically over sex that we had lowered that bar and then made it possible for people to put together articles of impeachment anytime they wanted.
And now it's just kind of par for the course. Really somebody takes office. Somebody on the other side of the aisle files some kind of impeachment, document. And so, yeah, it definitely lowered, lowered that standard and politicized it. It became a political weapon. But that isn't to say that it isn't sometimes used for, for legitimate purposes.
And, um, so I, I, I could see it being used both ways. One of the ways, one of the things that I think is important in this case is having the, the, U. S. Supreme Court weigh in because you're right. There isn't exact language. Back in the day when those words were written, people got left off of ballots all the time.
It was considered self executing. And so people would just say, hey, look, you know, here's some evidence, here's, here's what you did at the beginning of the Civil War. You're not sorry about it. You're still thinking this was a good [00:17:00] idea. You can't run. is that something that we can do now that our population is substantially higher?
We have more people running, arguably higher stakes in some respects. Can we simply say, hey, this guy did something that was a insurrection and we have to leave him off the ballot. Otherwise we get stupid things like Oklahoma. and, and so I, I can see why this has been, you know, it, it could be weaponized.
Clearly someone in Oklahoma is thinking it should be weaponized right now. I want the, the U. S. Supreme Court to figure out, you know, does this apply in going forward? What needs, I mean, is it enough that we had the January 6th? committee and the report that came out of the committee. Is that enough? Is it enough that he did get his day in court, in civil court?
I don't know, but I really think it's important that they weigh in.
David Sirota: I think that's, I think there's an argument, a good argument for that, that in an era when we have seen recently a violent uprising at the U. [00:18:00] S. Capitol, at minimum, it's probably a good idea to get some clarity on what the 14th Amendment is, what it isn't, what its requirements are, what they are not. it's, it's pretty general.
It does, of course, give Congress the ability to kind of lift it in the text of the amendment. There's a provision about Congress can vote and sort of sort of shut it off for for time being or for a moment or in an instance. I do think this question of it being used in other situations is a real one.
I wonder, though, Are you concerned that the U. S. Supreme Court's conservative supermajority, a supermajority in my view that really has wielded its power in a kind of ideological and in many cases partisan way, will simply rule in Trump's favor in a way that doesn't necessarily [00:19:00] create any clarity. It's just doing essentially a favor.
For the guy who put a bunch of them in there.
Okay,
Krista Kafer: You know, I haven't seen anything that makes me question their character. None of them. Not all nine. Um, obviously I agree with some justices more than others,
David Sirota: you and I are going to have to disagree with that on Clarence Thomas
and Alito,
Krista Kafer: Yeah, I, yeah, and I, you know, and I also think we can disagree or agree. I, I think we've got =some people on that court that are originalists. They're really concerned about how the language meant, you know, what that language meant at the time.
How does it apply then? How do we apply history to our understanding? Um, I, I think that helps. I also think that you've got John Roberts, who is very practical and very much in wanting to keep the court from legislating. he's a kind of person that seems to want to get The both wings of the party to come together as much as possible when it's possible.
So I think there's, I think there's some really good people in the court, and I'm glad that they're weighing [00:20:00] in. I, I wanted to to mention that, you know, when we, when we decide to do something, there's always the question of what are the unintended consequences of what I'm gonna about to do? And keep in mind that if I had not signed onto that, it still would've gone forward.
There are other people, great people like Norma Anderson on it. One of the things that I asked myself when I signed on was what are the unintended consequences of This action and and I think you're very correct in saying that it could open a Pandora's box the other opposition oppositional point that I think is Is somewhat justified as does it galvanize the other side to want to vote for their guy even more?
I think that's also possible and unfortunate But then I also ask myself, what are the, what is the, the unintended consequences of not acting? And I think they are at least as serious, if not more serious, than the potential downside. Because we have a person that not only did [00:21:00] not concede, still has not conceded a race, fomented lies that were so powerful that they caused people to show up wanting to take up arms.
And I, we watched. Some of the video from one of the officer's cameras, they were there for blood lies have power. They don't have the power to erase the truth, but they certainly have power to do great and grievous damage. And so I asked myself, if we don't do this, are we simply Sort of giving a, a green light to somebody like Trump, to trump himself or to someone in the future to say, no, no, no.
You don't have to concede you, you, you served a term, you took an oath. You decided not to concede you, you lied. You had a lot of, you had a following of people, including a subset of those people who are violent. You incited them. They showed up in order to disrupt the transfer of power. I, I, I think we're giving a green light to people like that and that, that scared [00:22:00] me even more.
David Sirota: think, I think, ultimately, going back to this question of the legal part of it, which is the check and balance, the making sure this doesn't isn't weaponized in a way that's, um, that's obviously ridiculous, uh, which I don't think in this instance, in the Trump instance, it is, but I can imagine a future where, where it is that, that is very much, uh, I think on, on, on my mind, I think this, if I had to guess.
I'm just going to throw this out there. I could be completely wrong, but if I had to guess if the Supreme Court wants an off ramp to this, one thing that they might do is say, this can happen. You can be removed from a ballot, but you have to be convicted first in a lower court, a federal court, a state court of insurrection before this constitutional amendment can be invoked to keep you off a ballot.
So I, I think that's one way. The Supreme [00:23:00] court can end up getting out of this. Now, I also think there's also this kind of moral, ethical, political question, really question about democracy in this way. There are, there are some critics who oppose the Colorado ruling who have said, essentially, look, if you want to defeat Trump, you should, and have to do it at the ballot box rather than in.
A court, and, and some of those folks are people who just want to see Donald Trump get reelected, but others have essentially argued that we should respect. Americans right to make the decision about who should or should not be president of the United States, and that preventing ballot access denies the country its ability to make that fair choice.
What do you? And I realize that that is not a legal argument. It is [00:24:00] sort of something even bigger. It's kind of an argument
about democracy. What do You
say to that?
Krista Kafer: You know what, I think it's a fair
criticism. I
guess my two pushbacks would be this. We already have eligibility parameters within the constitution, including residency, age, natural born citizen, no insurrection, no more than two terms. And so saying that somebody's not eligible, um, I'm sure there, there are people that would love to see President Obama run again, but he's not eligible, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he's, he's not eligible.
So we're not denying them the vote to vote for the guy they want. They, they're just, the guy's not eligible. So I would push back in that way. And on the second part, I understand that people want. To be either to vote for him or, or to not vote for him and to believe that this should be decided in a, uh, at the ballot box.
But I have to remind folks that President Trump tried to [00:25:00] disenfranchise millions of my fellow Americans when he tried to overturn an election, right? These were Americans that didn't vote the same way I did. These are Americans of a party that I'm not part of, but I, he tried to rob them of their vote.
The meaning of their vote. And I, I think that, that anyone who is prepared to vote for, for Trump, again, needs to acknowledge that, that, and if the, if the shoe were on the other foot, if a Democrat tried to rob Republicans of their vote by overthrowing an election, wouldn't they want someone to do something other than just say, Hey, let's leave it up to the voter.
And thirdly, one of the reasons that the 14th Amendment. was written is that the people who had subverted the Constitution, who had taken an oath, subverted that oath, were now out of office and wanting to run for office again. You know, I'm sure there were some that were contrite and, and maybe got amnesty, but of those that were [00:26:00] not contrite, the masses wanted them in power. And yet the, the drafters of the 14th Amendment said, no, they're not eligible. And if it had been left up to the people, and eventually it was, eventually the, uh, the effort to make things right in the North and South, it, people got tired, um, and Reconstruction kind of fell by the wayside. Once that amendment was no longer taken seriously, those people did get back into office.
And what did they do? They set up a system of slavery without the word slave. And they put the Black Codes into, uh, into law, and then we didn't really have Democracy and justice until a century later, so I, I do want to leave it up to the people. I do want to trust that people will not vote for a demagogue that attempted to subvert the will of the people.
I'd like to think that, but I, I also appreciate that we have these legal safeguards.
David Sirota: wonder. Also,[00:27:00] No matter what comes out of this ruling, I wonder if, if what your thoughts are on the The political ramifications of the case itself. I mean, obviously, how it turns out will also have political ramifications. But there are some who argue that the case itself, even its existence, and then the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, only strengthens Trump.
Him wanting to portray himself as the great martyr, as the great oppressed. Uh, leader of his movement, uh, that this strengthens him. It's kind of the, um, you know, the old, if you strike me down, Darth, I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. That adage from, from, uh, from Star Wars. Are you concerned That no matter where we go from here, that this has, in a, in a sense, given him political fuel, not just necessarily for his presidential aspirations, but fueled a, a movement based on his [00:28:00] grievances, a movement that is unpredictable, chaotic and
potentially destructive.
Krista Kafer: What I hear from those destructive people a lot, thanks to
David Sirota: I'm sure,
Krista Kafer: and I, I,
guess, I wish I had thought of that. I know that sounds tremendously naive. I, you know, I, I, I read her suit. I thought, well, this, this makes sense. this is, you know, this is the right thing to do. I guess it, it didn't cross my mind that people would think it was a badge of honor for a court to decide that you're an insurrectionist. I, I can't understand that thinking. I don't, I don't understand how, now that he's been convicted of a, of a number of things and is on the verge of being convicted even more, like why does that make him a hero?
David Sirota: I agree with you, but his argument, his entire brand is, I am anti establishment. Uh, the establishment will do anything they can to stop me and to stop my movement. Uh, and that, and that every time there's a court case, [00:29:00] every time there's a charge against me, every time I get prosecuted, it's just a log on the fire proving That I and my movement are oppressed and that we need to redouble our efforts, right?
I mean, that's, I mean, I, I obviously don't agree with that and, and think that's sort of an insane, uh, way of, uh, of thinking about things in, in this case, but that is, that, that is how Trump has managed to use this in a movement based on grievances. And, and I can tell you that while I think. Everything you've said about why to bring this case, why this constitutional amendment needs to be, uh, at minimum clarified, what, you know, why the Supreme Court probably needs to, and Congress, by the way, needs to clarify what this amendment is, how it should work, et cetera, et cetera, that So here outside of the legal structure in the, in the political world, in [00:30:00] the, in the day to day world, I can tell you that my, that my concern is that doing all of this, trying to, trying to get that clarity, trying to enforce that constitutional amendment, trying to enforce the law, you know, there's a, there's an obvious threat of blowback.
It's not to say that that threat of blowback should be a deterrent. It's only to ask the question, how concerned do you think we need to be that a case like this. strengthens him. in ways that could end up being ultimately incredibly destructive.
Krista Kafer: No, I, I get it. And I, I think that's the hard part with dilemmas is that when there are, you know, it's not, it's not a question of, well, should I have steak or should I eat this, you know, thing out of the trash? Our, most of our life is something in the middle of making, you know, a decent choice among decent choices.
And I, I often. I think there are very good reasons to do this and also probably some very good reasons not to do [00:31:00] it um of which you've articulated but when I when I think about it, I I keep thinking honestly david I think about his enablers I think about those congress people who knew the truth And refused to speak it who still refused to speak it Who get up there and equivocate in front of their base saying well, maybe the election was stolen.
No, it wasn't I think about them, I think about his demagoguery, I think about the fact that his fighting words are getting worse. and I, I, I realize that this is my, one of my New Year's resolutions is to develop more empathy for people that I strenuously disagree with. So I'm trying to understand why somebody would like him and would be okay with that. I'm not there yet.
David Sirota: Yeah, I mean, I, my guess, my guess would be is that, is that I, think a lot of, a lot of people who who support him have completely given up on the system. They think the [00:32:00] system is in, inherently corrupt and illegitimate. And so anytime the system, and I put that in quotes, tries to do anything, uh, against Donald Trump, it's just proof of the conspiracy and the corruption of the system.
So it's sort of a, he's kind of created a self contained Uh, ideological, circle so that anything that's, anything that he does to transgress the law, if there's any attempt to enforce the law, it's proof of the conspiracy against him. And I think that's a very appealing message in a country where It is true that institutions have broken down.
The social contract has broken down. The system often doesn't seem to really give a crap about regular people. I think it's, so, so Trump has made an opportunity out of that for himself that. Anger at the system has been, [00:33:00] among his supporters, has been channeled into a nihilistic and destructive, movement that he is able to make an opportunity out of.
Uh, so I think that's, that's really what's going on and that actually is a good segue to my, to my question about you as a Republican. this is a question about your own politics. You're a lifelong Republican, a conservative. What has been the response you've gotten from fellow Republicans? How does it feel to have, I'm, I'm guessing, at least some Republicans telling you you're a bad person, a bad Republican, a bad conservative, right? Right, I'm just curious, like, you know, it's not every day that somebody in a high profile way Who was a political activist or politically engaged takes a major serious stand against their own party.
So what does that felt like? What's been the, what's
been the response?
Krista Kafer: luckily, I guess I've been, I was [00:34:00] marginalized before, before I made this decision, which made it a little bit easier. I, I was a critic before he got elected. I was a critic. I agree with some of the things he did. I liked some of his just judges. I, I was pretty critical, uh, throughout his 4 years.
Although again, there's things I agreed with and then. Uh, the day after the election when he started to try to cheat to overthrow the election, I had been incredibly vocal, mostly through my Denver Post column, but also when I'm either on Colorado Inside Out on Channel 12 or when I'm subbing on the radio.
I made it very clear that there is no evidence of a vast conspiracy, much less even a A small but measurable amount of fraud. It just hasn't happened and that it puts election workers in harm's way and that it is not an appealing message. Uh, that it's that's quackery basically. And so, you know, I get, I get now [00:35:00] more, hate mail, I guess hate email.
hate tweets from the far right than I do the far left and You know, I and it's things like I'm a traitor a traitor to the country. I'm evil. Someone called me a Satanist like it's it's crazy how how angry some of these people are and It's just not something that I can really relate to now what might also surprise you is that I've got Friends, acquaintances, as well as strangers that write me that are thoughtfully disagree with what we're doing.
Sometimes they're Republicans, sometimes they're Democrats, they put forth some of the criticisms that you've articulated. And that's fine, because I think those criticisms are valid. I do also get, uh, Republicans who don't want to be public, who have said privately how much they appreciate it. I've had people send donations to CRU, the left leaning organization that is helping us.
Uh, these are Republicans, uh, saying, what you're doing is [00:36:00] so important, I'm, I'm gonna send some money. I've had, complete strangers, usually on the left, sometimes on the right. I usually, it's after I've done a media hit like on CNN, write me and say thank you, thank you for doing this and, and so it's, it's, it's been kind of all of the above, uh, conscientious, thoughtful criticism, crazy, uh, nastiness.
Appreciation, including appreciation from people I, I didn't even know I had, uh, got a fair amount of people on the left that really like my column, even though they don't generally agree with it. I had somebody walk up to me in a bar and buy me a drink and he was a member of the progressive left.
He's like, I don't agree with you, but I love your column and I love what you're doing. I'm buying the drink, you know, so it's interesting to me. It's just interesting to see the reaction, and in my private life, I'm not very political, so, uh, and I have a lot of friends on the left and the right, and we mostly just want to talk about food, travel, [00:37:00] dogs, so I don't, I don't hear about it.
It just always surprises me. I was at church on Sunday, and someone walked up to me and said, I just want to say thank you for what you're doing. And I was like, oh, wait, what am I doing? And I'm thinking like, they're like, you know, the court case. I was like, oh, that doing. Yes. Well, thanks. Thanks.
David Sirota: me ask you a final question. when looking at this and the experience you've gone through in this case, what is In your mind, the best outcome or the best set of outcomes that could come of it is it Donald Trump is removed from Colorado's ballot. Other states. I mean, we've already seen Maine. Take Donald Trump.
Try to take Donald Trump off the ballot. Other states follow suit is the best outcome. Donald Trump remains on the ballot, but the Supreme Court has made crystal clear what Would rise to the level of a violation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, right? If you could wave a wand and fast forward to what the Supreme Court does And and the Supreme Court could remand it back [00:38:00] to the Colorado Supreme Court So that may not be the the last the last say at the US Supreme Court.
What's the best outcome of the
case?
Krista Kafer: I would say. Some clear, obviously what you're saying, some clarity around what, how does, how is that applied today? it, it was, when, when Congress was quite a bit smaller, and state houses were quite a bit smaller, and our population was quite a bit smaller, it, having it be self executing worked. Now there needs to be some parameters on how it should be done, if not just for practical reasons.
That we can't simply have one state leaving him off the ballot and another state putting him on the ballot. Other people, like the people in Oklahoma, trying to misuse this. We can't have that. So we need, we need parameters around it. said, I, I want, I really want people to take seriously what happened on January 6th.
I would like for him not to be on the ballot. I would [00:39:00] like for this to be a message going forward to anyone that wants to do this again, that this is not tolerable, that if you lose an election, you don't even, you don't have to call up your opponent and say, you know, good job. You don't have to do any of that.
It's nice when you do, but one thing that you can't do is the next day lie about it and then lie about it and lie about it and lie about it until people are put into harm's way. That's not acceptable and, and keep that in mind the next time you run for office. Keep that in mind. And, and, and, and Trump, keep that in mind when you lose this, this November, that you can't, you know, assuming, let's say he stays on the ballot, I just want there to be some message to people, to him and people like him. You don't get to do that. Not in a democracy.
David Sirota: Krista Kafer is a writer and a columnist for the Denver Post. She is also one of the Republican plaintiffs in the court case, uh, attempting to remove Donald Trump, uh, from [00:40:00] Colorado's ballot, a case now headed to the U. S.
Supreme Court. Krista, thanks for taking
time with us today.
Krista Kafer: Thanks, David.
That's it for today's show. As a reminder, our paid subscribers who get Lever Time premium, you get to hear next week's bonus episode, our interview with journalist and sports writer, Matt Brown, about how the private equity industry could soon be getting involved in college football.
David Sirota: To listen to Lever Time Premium, just head over to levernews. com to become a supporting subscriber. When you do, you get access to all of Lever's premium content, including our weekly newsletters and our live events. And that's all for just 8 a month or 70 for the year. One last favor. Please be sure to like, subscribe, and write a review for Lever Time on your favorite podcast app.
The app you are listening to right now, take 10 seconds and give us a positive review in that app. And make sure to check out all of the incredible reporting our team has been doing over at levernews. com. Until next time, I'm David Sirota. Rock the boat.
[00:41:00] The Lever Time Podcast is a production of the Lever and the Lever Podcast Network. It's hosted by me, David Sirota. Our producer is Frank Capello with help from Lever producer, Jared Jacang Mayor.