Trump Ballot Ban & Tennessee Sues BlackRock | 12.20.23

00:03
Speaker 1
The Colorado Supreme Court removes former President Trump from the state's ballot, claiming he's not eligible because of the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. Will the ruling stand, and what does it mean for 2024? I'm Daily Wire editor in chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Wednesday, December 20, and this is Morning wire. You Texas cracks down on illegal immigration with first in the nation criminal laws.

00:31
Speaker 2
Biden's deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself.

00:36
Speaker 1
What do the new laws entail? And why is governor Abbot preparing for a legal showdown?

00:41
Speaker 3
And Tennessee's attorney general sues Blackrock, the world's largest asset manager, claiming it has misled consumers in pursuit of a political agenda.

00:51
Speaker 1
Thanks for waking up with Morningwire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. The Colorado Supreme Court took the unprecedented step Tuesday of ruling former president Donald Trump ineligible to run for office, banning him from the ballot. The court's decision is the latest in a series of historic legal hurdles facing Trump's bid to return to the White House. Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce is here to talk about the court's decision and where we go from here. Hey, Tim. So first, what exactly did the court say?

01:25
Speaker 4
Some context. First, the court ruled in response to a challenge to Trump's campaign under the 14th Amendment, specifically section three, the insurrection clause. The amendment was ratified after the civil war, specifically to deal with those who had rebelled against the union. And as CNN notes, it's only ever been applied twice since 1919. The clause says, no person who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution like a former president, shall be able to hold any federal or state office if they've, quote, engaged insurrection or rebellion against the government. The court, in a four three decision, said Trump incited an insurrection on January 6 and violated his presidential oath, therefore giving up his right to run for federal office. The court said, quote, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the question now before us.

02:14
Speaker 1
So along with some very controversial legal theory, this all depends upon the claim that Trump has actually engaged insurrection. What evidence did the court provide? That he's guilty.

02:24
Speaker 4
Right. And that's caused some to say this is a violation of Trump's due process rights. It's important to note that this is a civil case and not a criminal trial, so the burden of proof is much lower. The state Supreme Court upheld a lower court finding that said Trump, by what it claims is clear and convincing evidence, had engaged in an insurrection under section three. But the lower court also said that section three did not apply to the office of the president so Trump's name could stay on the ballot. The state supreme Court, though, said they believe presidents are liable under section three and because of that, Trump is now ineligible to run.

02:58
Speaker 1
Now Trump's team has responded. What have they said so far?

03:02
Speaker 4
Well, they've said the ruling is completely flawed and undemocratic. His campaign quickly issued a statement accusing the court of eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. They also note that the court contains justices that were all appointed by Democrats and said it's unsurprising that they are backing a Soros funded left wing group scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden. We should note that is accurate. All seven of the justices were in fact appointed by democratic governors. Trump's team said they were going to swiftly file an appeal and expressed full confidence that the US Supreme Court will shoot down the ruling.

03:38
Speaker 1
All right, so they are going to file an appeal. How do we expect this to play out?

03:43
Speaker 4
Well, we've never been in a situation like this before, and the court recognized that. So it has stayed its ruling until at least January 4 to give time for Trump to file an appeal. Once an appeal is filed, the stay will remain in place indefinitely. So Trump's name will most likely remain on the ballot in Colorado until we hear from the Supreme Court on this. It's also important to point out that courts in other states have ruled against similar attempts to keep Trump off the ballot. We saw efforts in Arizona, Minnesota, and Michigan already struck down with an appeal filed in Michigan just Monday to get that case heard by the state supreme Court. As far as the merits of the case go, legal experts have been weighing in rapid fire. George Washington University's Jonathan Turley has slammed the ruling as strikingly anti democratic.

04:25
Speaker 4
He said the opinion from the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over the various legal barriers, and the result lacks a limiting principle. The opinion is, quote, so sweeping that it would allow for Titfort removals of candidates from ballots. He's certainly not alone on that perspective. And again, there's a reason other courts have struck down attempts to use the 14th amendment to ban Trump from the ballot.

04:47
Speaker 1
Well, now we look to the US Supreme Court to see how they rule. Tim, thanks for joining us.

04:52
Speaker 4
Thanks for having me.

04:57
Speaker 1
Republican Governor Greg Abbot signed a monumental bill this week that makes it a state crime to enter Texas illegally.

05:05
Speaker 3
Here to discuss is daily wire reporter Amanda Prestigamo. So, Amanda, let's get right into this new immigration law. What exactly does it allow the state to do?

05:14
Speaker 5
Hey, Georgia. So this law now permits local Texas officials to enforce immigration law, though generally immigration enforcement has otherwise been delegated to the federal government. Under Senate bill four, which is set to take effect in March, it's now a state misdemeanor to cross the Texas Mexico border illegally. Migrants who cross illegally can be deported back to their native countries, which directly defies Biden's current catch and release policy, or the migrant will face prosecution. The new law also targets repeat offenders. So if an illegal immigrant tries to reenter the state, that could be penalized with up to 20 years in prison.

05:53
Speaker 3
Now, Abbot also signed two other immigration related bills alongside this one. What do those do?

05:58
Speaker 5
So one of the bills takes on human trafficking. It increases the minimum sentence for smuggling migrants from two years to ten years. The other bill takes on the physical border. It appropriates over $1.5 billion in funding for border security, and it includes up to $40 million for state troopers to patrol Colony Ridge, which has been dubbed the nation's largest illegal immigration settlement and is a known hub for cartel violence, following those daily wire investigations. Right.

06:28
Speaker 3
So this is clearly a very significant move, but the question is, if it was this easy, why hasn't it been done until now?

06:35
Speaker 5
Yeah, that's really the crux of the issue here. This will almost certainly be challenged in court since immigration is considered a federal issue. But politically, it's going to put pressure on Biden. It will be really unpopular for him to come down hard against this law at a time when Americans and even the bluest of cities are expressing concerns over Biden's border policies. Clearly, though, Abbott thinks this is a battle worth fighting, and the governor acknowledged that at the bill signing. He also stressed that, in his view, he really had no other choice than to move forward with this bill.

07:07
Speaker 2
Four years ago, the United States had the fewest illegal border crossings in about 40 years. It was because of four policies put in place by the Trump administration. Now, under President Biden, he has eliminated all of those policies and has done nothing to halt illegal immigration. Joe Biden's deliberate inaction has decimated America.

07:36
Speaker 5
Abbot also said that, including the so called gotaways, it's been estimated that about 8 million people have already crossed the border illegally. During the Biden years, the governor called the open border crisis a national security issue.

07:51
Speaker 2
While Donald Trump was president, there were eleven people on the terrorist watch list who were apprehended under Joe Biden. However, that number has skyrocketed to 294 people on the terrorist watch list who've been apprehended. That's a 2600% increase under Joe Biden, and it does not include the people who were not apprehended.

08:16
Speaker 3
Now, unsurprisingly, there's been some pushback. Tell us about that.

08:20
Speaker 5
Yeah. The ACLU of Texas has already promised to sue the state in the coming weeks, and they're trying to block the law before it's ever implemented. They claim the law will allow for Texas officials to harass and target migrants, and they argue that the state just simply does not have the jurisdiction to do this. Texas Democrats are also asking the Department of Justice to step in here with legal action against the state. Now, Texas Republicans were clearly aware this was going to involve some sort of legal showdown because Senate bill four does provide civil immunity and indemnification for local and state government officials, employees, and contractors who might face lawsuits for enforcing this law.

08:59
Speaker 3
Well, this is going to be a showdown for sure, but maybe advantageous for abbot. Amanda, thanks for reporting.

09:05
Speaker 5
You're welcome.

09:10
Speaker 3
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Screamtti is suing Blackrock over alleged consumer protection violations. The suit hones in on Blackrock's political agenda and the potential conflicts with its obligations to consumers.

09:23
Speaker 1
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of actions from state attorneys general against the world's largest asset manager. Here with the story is Dailywire reporter Spencer Linquist. Hey, Spencer. So first, tell us more about this lawsuit against Blackrock.

09:37
Speaker 6
Sure. So Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skirmedi released this lawsuit on Monday, and it really hinges on potential consumer protection violations and the asset manager's pursuit of ESG. It specifically alleges that consumers were deprived of the ability to make an informed decision thanks to BlackRock's, quote, inconsistent statements about its investment strategies.

09:57
Speaker 1
And what are some of those statements that the lawsuit points to?

10:01
Speaker 6
Well, one of the examples it highlights is an interview with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, in which he assures the public that the asset manager's investment strategy is focused solely on fulfilling its fiduciary duty.

10:11
Speaker 7
Everything we do is on behalf of our clients. Everything we do is with the purpose of financial returns. There is not one thing we have ever done, whether it's ESG or any other issue, is in the pursuit of financial return. That is our fiduciary responsibility, and we live that every day.

10:30
Speaker 1
So we have him saying there that their sole focus is financial, but the ESG movement factors in here. How so?

10:37
Speaker 6
So that's really the main contention of the lawsuit, that BlackRock's ESG agenda conflicts with its financial duty. It specifically highlights BlackRock's membership in two different climate focused coalitions, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100. The suit points out that membership in the two organizations is contingent on, quote, lobbying engagement, voting on shareholder proposals, and managing assets with the goal of achieving net zero by 2050. And it also asserts that, quote, BlackRock's continued membership necessitates its commitment to pushing aggressive carbon reduction strategies across all assets under management.

11:14
Speaker 1
All right, so the discrepancy between these two different positions is the basis for the allegation that BlackRock is deceiving or misleading consumers.

11:22
Speaker 6
Yeah, exactly. I spoke with Attorney general Screamti and here's what he had to say about that.

11:26
Speaker 8
Our lawsuit is not pointed at the ESG conduct that people have been worried about. It is a straightforward consumer protection lawsuit saying, hey, here's a company that's making two contradictory representations to its customers. First, that this is all neutral and that they're focused solely on boosting return on investment. And second, that there are special considerations given to environmental factors. And if a company is making false or misleading statements to customers, that's a consumer protection violation.

11:58
Speaker 6
The suit contends that rather than endure any negative publicity that would result from Blackrock removing themselves from those climate coalitions, it is instead opted to deceive consumers, quote, about the company's extensive commitment to fulfilling ESG aims.

12:13
Speaker 1
Now, this lawsuit is just the latest instance of Blackrock coming under fire for their political agenda. What other developments have we seen this year related to that claim?

12:22
Speaker 6
Sure. So several states have taken action over Blackrock. Earlier this year, in April, there was a coalition of 20 different state attorneys general, Skirmetti included, and they warned Blackrock of the potential that the ESG agenda could conflict with their financial obligations. Republican led states like Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and several others, they've all divested billions of dollars, just under $12 billion, actually, from Blackrock in 2022 and 2023. And now the asset manager, they actually had to lay off about 500 employees and they have lost roughly $1.5 trillion in assets.

12:58
Speaker 1
Wow. Well, growing scrutiny right now on that company. Spencer, thanks for reporting.

13:02
Speaker 6
Thank you.

13:07
Speaker 3
That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news. You need to know.