A trial in Colorado which seeks to disqualify Donald Trump from running for re-election in the state is currently underway. Six GOP and Independent voters have filed a lawsuit arguing that the former president is ineligible to hold office due to his actions surrounding the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE UNITED STATES ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE ALL AROUND FOR GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATORS WHICH COULD BE INDICATORS FOR 2024.
MEANTIME, COLORADO IS WRAPPING UP A TRIAL TO DECIDE WHETHER FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS EVEN ELIGIBLE TO BE ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT NEXT YEAR.
COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE JANET GRISWOLD ONE OF THE DEFENSE OF THE CASE NOW JOINS HARVEY STREET .
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
THERE IS A LAWSUIT IN YOUR STATE THAT'S PRETTY INTERESTING TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW BROUGHT BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE GOP, TO INDEPENDENCE AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BALLOT IN COLORADO BECAUSE IT BASICALLY REMOVES THEIR ABILITY TO "VOTE FOR A QUALIFIED CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
EXPLAIN AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
>> FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON AND YES, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING LAWSUIT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT SAYS EVERYONE THAT SWEARS TO UPHOLD THE COST OF TUITION AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGE IN REBELLION OR INSURRECTION WILL PROVIDE A COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OUR CONSTITUTION IS DISQUALIFIED FOR SO --BROUGHT THIS SUIT SAYING THAT PRESIDENT HAS DISQUALIFIED ENGAGING IN THE INSURRECTION ULTIMATELY A JUDGE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER FROM DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF THERE IS CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE ARE ALSO BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER TRUMP'S ACTIVITIES RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND INSURRECTION OR REBELLION AND OTHER QUESTIONS AROUND HOW SECTION 3 OF THE 13th --14th AMENDMENT WORKS.
UNDER COLORADO STATE LAW THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO REVIEW --OF A PRIMARY CANDIDATE SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS CASE AND I THINK OVERALL IT WILL BE A GOOD THING TO SEE THAT DECISION BUT ALSO OTHER ELECTION OFFICIALS ACROSS THE NATION.
>> I SHOULD KNOW THAT YOU ARE A CO-DEFENDANT .
>> AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO I CERTIFIED THE BALLOT SO I AM A CO- DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT SAY THAT I SHOULD HAVE NOT PUT HIM ON THE BALLOT.
NOW I HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY OFFICIAL ACTION .
AND ACTUALLY WHEN THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED WE STILL DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE FORMS FOR DONALD TRUMP'S CANDIDACY.
SO THAT'S WHY I AM A DEFENDANT.
OUR POSTURE IS THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT DONALD TRUMP IN LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION -- INCITED THE INSURRECTION AND THAT A COURT SHOULD DECIDE THE PRECEDING AND OTHER BIG QUESTIONS AROUND HOW THE 14th AMENDMENT WORKS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE MATTER OF BEING CHARGED WITH OR BEING CONVICTED OF INSURRECTION WE HAVE SEEN THE TRIALS OF THE BEEN GOING ON SINCE JANUARY 6 WITH MEMBERS OF THE PROUD BOYS WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF THIS.
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT.
DOES THAT MATTER?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH VARIOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
BUT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A GUILTY VERDICT IS NEEDED FOR SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT DISQUALIFICATION IS A BIG QUESTION IN THIS CASE AND WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT HISTORICALLY DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THIS INSURRECTION CLAUSE DID NOT REQUIRE A GUILTY VERDICT IN SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR AND IT WAS USED TO REMOVE HUNDREDS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS FROM OFFICE DURING RECONSTRUCTION AND AGAIN, HISTORICALLY IT DID NOT REQUIRE THAT GUILTY CHARGE BUT ULTIMATELY WE WILL SEE WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS.
>> SO THOSE WORDS THAT WE REMEMBER FROM JANUARY 6th, PRESIDENT TRUMP STANDING AND TELLING A CROWD WE HAVE TO FIGHT AND IF YOU DON'T FIGHT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE.
HOW MUCH OF THAT IS PROTECTED SPEECH AND WHAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS INCITEMENT?
>> THOSE ARE SOME OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT A JUDGE WILL WEIGH OR NOT.
AND OF COURSE EVERYBODY HAS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BUT THOSE RIGHTS DO NOT TRUMP SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT OR DO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS PROTECT FROM INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE.
DID HIS ACTIONS RISE TO DISQUALIFICATION?
DID HE DISQUALIFY HIMSELF?
WOULD DISQUALIFICATION COME FROM BEING SEATED IN THE OFFICE OR ON THE BALLOT?
ANOTHER QUESTION IS WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
AND UNDER COLORADO LAW IF THERE IS A CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION, A JUDGE DECIDES SO THERE IS A LOT OF BIG QUESTIONS AND I THINK EITHER WAY THAT THE GUIDANCE WILL BE GOOD FOR ELECTION OFFICIALS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THESE LAWSUITS ARE FILED IN VARIOUS PLACES AND WE ARE SEEING IT PLAY OUT ACROSS THE NATION.
>> REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS SPECIFIC JUDGE RULES IT IS LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED, WE ARE IN A DISTRICT COURT, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> SO WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD TIME WILL --TIMELINE WISE A DECISION AND OTHERS TO HAVE CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHAT TO DO?
>> I THINK THE JUDGE IN THIS FIRST STEP OF THE CASE UNDERSTANDS THE URGENCY IN THIS IMMEDIATE NATURE OF RESOLVING THE SITUATION QUICKLY.
SO THIS CASE WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 6th AND LESS THAN TWO MONTHS LATER WE ALREADY HAVE THE TRIAL.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE ON THE 15th AND THE JUDGE HAS INDICATED THAT SHE HAD WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO ISSUE THE DECISION BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
AS YOU SAY IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THIS CASE IS APPEALED EITHER BY PETITIONERS OR DONALD TRUMP OR THE COLORADO GOP WHICH IS ALSO A PARTY IN THE CASE AND THAT IT WOULD GO TO THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT.
NOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD THEN GO TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT I THINK IS A LITTLE PREMATURE.
I THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT DOES AND WHAT OTHER COURTS DO ACROSS THE NATION.
>> YOU SHOULD KNOW FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAS CALLED THE CASE ANTI- DEMOCRATIC AND SAID THAT THEIR CLIENTS WORDS DID NOT MEET THE SUPREME COURT'S THRESHOLDS FOR INCITEMENT AND THEREFORE ARE AMENDMENT.
THE RESULT FROM THIS CASE , DOES IT HAVE BEARING ON THOSE LARGER IDEAS?
>> WE COULD SEE THAT PLAY OUT.
WE WILL SEE WHAT THE JUDGE HOLDS AND WITH THE LINES OF APPEALS ARE.
SO WE COULD SEE FURTHER INFORMATION ON WHAT'S PROTECTED SPEECH AND WHAT IS NOT .
IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY.
>> IT SEEMS THAT THE MORE PRESIDENT TRUMP COMES UNDER LEGAL SCRUTINY IN CERTAIN CORNERS OF AMERICA, HIS SUPPORT INCREASES.
WHAT YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE EVEN IN COLORADO WHO SAY THIS IS A POLITICAL WITCHHUNT JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT IS AND IT'S A POLITICAL MANEUVER TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CANDIDATE IS NOT ON THE BALLOT!
>> I SAY FOLLOWING THE LAW AND UPHOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD DO IN A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY.
WHEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW OR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THEN IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A JUDGE TO WEIGH IN AND THE LEGAL PROCESS PLAY OUT.
YOU KNOW, SUPPORTERS BUT MORE POINT LEAD THE FORMER PRESIDENT AS SOON AS THIS --HE STARTED TO SHOUT ANYWHERE HE COULD THAT IT IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
WHAT WAS ELECTION INTERFERENCE WITH THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION , HIS TEAM'S ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTORAL PROCESS , THE FAKE ELECTORAL SCHEME.
HIS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEIZING VOTING EQUIPMENT!
ELECTION INTERFERENCE TRULY IS.
DETERMINING WHETHER SOMEONE IS CAUGHT DISQUALIFIED BY A CLEAR PROVISION IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS HOW A CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC SHOULD WORK.
>> WHY ISN'T A CASE PLAYING OUT IN SOMEWHERE LIKE GEORGIA WHERE THERE ARE RECORDED CONVERSATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT PRESSURING THE SECRETARY OF STATE?
>> THIS CASE HAS BEEN FILED IN VARIOUS STATES, BUT THE BIGGEST HIT ARE HERE IN COLORADO AND IN MINNESOTA.
WHEN THE CASE WAS INITIALLY FILED I ASKED MYSELF THE SAME QUESTION.
WHY WAS IT FILED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO AND LAWYERS FOR THE PETITIONERS ACTUALLY SAID IN AN INTERVIEW ONE OF THE REASONS IT WAS FILED HERE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT LAW IN PLACE ALLOWING VOTERS TO CHALLENGE NOTIFICATION AND HAVING THAT CHALLENGE GO TO A COURT OF LAW.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG REASONS OUR LAWS ALLOW EASIER CHALLENGE TO QUALIFICATION THAN IN OTHER STATES.
>> LET'S PLAY THIS OUT FOR A MINUTE.
LET'S SAY THE PETITIONERS WIN IN COLORADO SUPREME COURT AGREES AND THERE'S NO APPEAL THAT TAKES EFFECT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT VOTERS IN COLORADO WOULD NOT SEE DONALD TRUMP ON THE BALLOT WERE VOTERS IN THE STATES MIGHT?
>> I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO HYPOTHETICALS BECAUSE THERE IS A LONG TIME STILL TO WORK THIS ISSUE OUT BUT I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION IS THAT WHATEVER COURT DECISION OR ORDER IS IN EFFECT WHEN I SURVEY THE BALLOT IS WHAT I WILL DO SO MY JOB AS AN OFFICEHOLDER IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
WHEN WE HAVE THESE BIG QUESTIONS A COURT OF LAW WEIGHS IN.
IT IS PREMATURE TO SAY WHAT WILL HAPPEN BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS AROUND THE CASE.
THAT'S WHY WE JUST HAD A FIVE DAY TRIAL WITH PEOPLE TESTIFYING ON BOTH SIDES.
>> THERE'S ALSO A LINE OF THINKING THAT SAYS WHY NOT LET IT PLAY OUT AT THE BALLOT BOX ?
>> THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL DISCUSSION.
PEOPLE WHO ON ONE SIDE SAY THIS LAWSUIT IS GOOD AND OTHERS WHO SAY IT'S BAD THAT MY JOB IS NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE POLITICS.
MY JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW, UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THERE IS LISTENING TO THE COURT OF LAW SAYS.
THIS PROVISION IS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR A REASON AND THAT REASON WAS THAT OFFICEHOLDERS BACK WHEN BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION OR REBELLION SHOULD NOT BE AT THE HELM OF ELECTED OFFICE OR IN ANY OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY.
WE JUST HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS AND MY JOB WILL BE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER THE JUDGE IS AFTER TIME OF CERTIFICATION.
>> YOU'RE THE FIRST DEMOCRAT TO HOLD THIS OFFICE IN THE STATE OF COLORADO IN A LONG TIME.
PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS AND SAY CLEARLY SHE IS NO FAN OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND THAT'S WHY SHE WANTS TO DO THIS.
DECISIONS, LAWSUITS AND NONE OF THIS HAVING IN A POLITICAL VACUUM AND WHILE YOU MAY NOT WANT TO LOOK AND FACTOR IN THE POLITICS, EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA TODAY SEEMS TO TAKE POLITICS INTO ACCOUNT.
>> I WAS AGHAST, I AM THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC SECRETARY OF STATE ELECT IN 60 YEARS SINCE PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WAS PRESIDENT AND IN THIS CASE I DID NOT BRING THIS CASE.
I AM ACTUALLY A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.
THE LAWSUIT IS FILED UNDER THE PREMISE TO BAR ME A SECRETARY OF STATE IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FROM PUTTING DONALD TRUMP ON THE BALLOT.
AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE POLITICS WHEN WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF HOW OUR ELECTIONS WORK , HOW THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FUNCTIONS, HOW OUR LAWS WORK AGAIN MY JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND LISTEN TO THE COURT.
I DO BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP IS DANGEROUS TO OUR DEMOCRACY .
HIS LIES AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTIONS HAVE RULED -- ACROSS THE NATION, HAVE INCITED ATTACKS ON ELECTED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING THREE HERE IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
HAS LED TO AN POSSESSIVE LEVEL OF ATRIAL -- LED TO THREATS WHICH CAUSED SOME TO STEP DOWN.
I DO BELIEVE HE IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.
I ALSO BELIEVE IN THIS CASE WHETHER HE HAS DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF FROM TAKING OFFICE GIVEN HOW COLORADO LAW WORKS IS IN THE HANDS OF A COURT AND HONESTLY I THINK THAT IS GOOD.
A COURT SHOULD BE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINE WHAT --THAT IS A NECESSARY STEP IN THE CLIMATE WE SEE OURSELVES IN TODAY.
>> SO WHAT IS THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IN COLORADO SINCE THIS CASE WAS FILED?
>> THE POLITICAL CLIMATE HAS BEEN REALLY HARD FOR ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.
WE HAVE SEEN THREATS SKYROCKET.
WE HAD ABOUT ONE THIRD OF LOCAL COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND SINCE THIS IMMEDIATE CASE WE SAW A SKYROCKET OF THREAT AND WITHIN THREE WEEKS THERE WAS OVER 60 DEATH THREATS AND 900 TYPE TWO --THREATS WHICH MEANS NON-DEATH THREATS.
>> I WONDER WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU BECOME A FOCUS OF SO MUCH OF THE HATE AND VITRIOL AND THREAT ?
>> I TELL YOU, IT IS SCARY.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I RECEIVED A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF THREATS.
THE THREATS AGAINST ME MYSELF DARTED IN THE SUMMER OF 21 AND TWO MEN HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF LETTING MY LIFE OVER CONSPIRACIES SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DANGEROUS.
THE FACT THAT HIS RHETORIC AND ACTIONS INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST ELECTION WORKERS IS TROUBLING.
THAT IS NOT HOW --IS NOT HOW AMERICAN ELECTIONS CAN WORK.
WE SAW THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING OF THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN THE ATTACK AGAINST PAUL PELOSI.
THE ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITAL -- FRIENDLY ONE.
SO THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
FOR ME PERSONALLY I TAKE THE THREAT SERIOUSLY AND TAKE PRECAUTION BUT I WON'T BE LAST THING I WOULD SAY ON THIS, ALTHOUGH STRESS THAT I HAVE RECEIVED SINCE THE FILING OF THIS LAWSUIT IS FROM ME BEING A DEFENDANT.
I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T EVEN TAKEN ANY ACTION AND THAT REALLY SHOWS HOW VOLATILE THE NATIONAL DANGEROUS RHETORIC IS AGAINST ELECTION WORKERS AND OFTEN AT A HEIGHTENED DEGREE AGAINST WOMEN ELECTED OFFICIALS.
>> I KNOW THAT YOU SPEAK TO OTHER SECRETARIES OF STATE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BRING YOU TOGETHER AND I WONDER IF IT'S BROKEN TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT SHARE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT INFLUENCING ELECTIONS?
>> I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MANY SECRETARIES OF STATE ABOUT THE CHALLENGING TIMES INCLUDING BRAD AND SECRETARIES ACROSS THE NATION .
THERE ARE GOOD SECRETARIES OF STATE OUT THERE.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE THERE TO OPEN UP ACCESS AND INCREASE SECURITY BUT THERE IS ALSO A TROUBLING TREND AMONG SECRETARIES OF STATE DENIERS TERRY OF STATE THAT WERE ELECTED OR APPOINTED IN RECENT YEARS.
LUCKILY WE WERE ABLE TO STOP ELECTION DENIERS FROM WINNING RACES AND BATTLEGROUND STATES AND I WAS HAPPY TO LEAVE THAT CHARGE AND HELP PROTECT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT CROOKED POLITICIANS TRYING TO PUT THEIR FINGER ON THE SCALE OF ELECTIONS SHOULD BE THE ONE CHOOSING THE PRESIDENT NEXT YEAR.
>> COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE JENNA GRISWOLD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
