This is a Fox News alert. Three strikes and Biden's proxies are out. Moments ago, a Colorado judge ruled that Donald Trump is staying on the 2024 ballot in that state. Remember the Fourth Amendment challenge that was lodged in Colorado, in Minnesota, and in Michigan. All three of those have gone Trump's way. Joining me now is Mike Davis, Founder and President of the Article Three Project and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Mike, your reaction, these are three rulings now that have tossed aside, at least for now, the 14th Amendment argument that the left was saying was their ticket to keeping Trump off the ballot. Tell us what this means.

Well, I think this biased Denver district court judge out here blinks because I was certain sitting through the trial, the weeklong trial, that she was going to rule against President Trump. And I think that she saw the political backlash, and she saw that three other courts in three different states ruled against this Democrat theory to try to toss President Trump off the ballot. They had impeached him twice and indicted him four times, two illegal gag orders tried to bankrupt him with a bogus civil fraud lawsuit. That only helped President Trump with the polls, and this was their legal hail, Mary, to just take Trump off the ballot, and now they're all for three.

So this is district judge, Sarah Wallace, and it's a third ruling, as I said, in just a little over a week. And these lawsuits were filed by a left leaning group that included a bunch of Never Trumpers, Democrats, and so forth. But here's a key quote from the judge's ruling. She said, To be clear, part of the court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three, I believe, in the constitutional argument of the 14th Amendment. Is that correct, Mike?

That is correct, and this judge came back from the break because we could not get anything worse for our country to simply take the leading presidential candidate off the ballot based upon a bogus partisan legal theory that the Democrats are pedaling here. The only way to disqualify an office holder under Section 3 of the constitution, according to case law that's been on the books for over 150 years, is to bring federal criminal charges for insurrection or rebellion, have a jury unanimously find them guilty with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The district judge has to convict, and that conviction has to be upheld on appeal. That's the only route. And there's no chance that President Trump was involved with an insurrection on January sixth. There was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that got out of control and turned into a right.

Now, everyone should understand. So the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on this, that was just last week, again, said that Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have the sole choice over whether he appears. And then the Michigan judge who ruled on this said that Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section Three of the 14th Amendment applies. So three different judges, three different parts of the country. And Mike, I now want to bring in attorney who defended Trump in this, former Colorado Secretary of State, Scott Gessler. Scott, I think it was so ironic that all of these individuals who are out there calling Trump a force against democracy, this is dangerous, tyrannical impulses of Donald Trump, yet this is precisely what this radical interpretation of Section Three, Article of the 14th Amendment, excuse me, the Constitution, would have done by ripping him off the ballot. It's stunning to me.

That's exactly the case. Unfortunately, this judge allowed them to go through a full five-day hearing and a lot further in the process than this should have ever gone. But ultimately, she made the right decision. And that decision is that the people of the United States, we're the ones who get to choose who our President is going to be, not the courts. This whole series of cases, it relies on some pretty unusual theories from a law that hasn't been enforced for probably over 100 years. So it was a desperate attempt to really prevent people from being able to vote for the person they want.

And Mike, I've said this time and again, it's worth repeating tonight, is that the only way the left will stop, if they're stopped by either being a judge's ruling and it has to be an emphatic ruling, or a sweeping electoral victory by Americans who just say, Enough of this. This isn't even common sense. Forget being a constitutional scholar. This makes no sense. But judges, one after the other, have come in and said, Cannot do this.

Yeah, I would say this is going to be a tactical retreat by the Democrats. Like you said, Laura, they play for keeps. They will do whatever it takes to win. If you thought that 2020 was bad with BLM rights, brace ourselves for what they have in store in 2024 with their Hamas and BLM supports.

And when we look at this, the way this case is being argued, and look, they're going to not stop. So you argue this case and you win in Colorado, but what's the next hill that has to be climbed for President Trump, the former State Secretary?

Well, from a legal standpoint, I think Colorado was probably their best chance. I think this is their high watermark. I'm sure they'll try appealing it to the Coloradoout of Supreme Court, but I don't think they'll have any more luck there than they've had anywhere else across the country. So I'm guessing they'll probably start cooking up a new legal theory that no one's thought of yet because it's so far out to the left wing that no one will think of it. But this, I think, I hope, is their high watermark.

Scott, were you surprised if you saw it in this new... I believe this was the Washington Post Monmouth poll that shows that Republican primary voters in New Hampshire, I think it's the third most important issue for them, is the Justice Department's unfair application of the law. The open board... It was the open border, it was inflation, high prices, and I think that came in either third or fourth ahead of crime. What does that tell you about what Republican primary voters are seeing? And that's in, again, the quirky state of New Hampshire.

Yeah, I think people are really concerned about fundamental fairness in this country. We even saw this in Colorado, where the Secretary of State, the current Secretary of State here, instead of being neutral and an honest broker, as soon as this complaint was filed, she came out and accused President Trump of all kinds of things, and it was pretty clear she was biased from the start. I think people are really concerned about the weaponization of the Department of Justice of a lot of our public officials, particularly ones who just hate President Trump. They want to do everything they can to stop them, and they're using the law rather than the democratic processes.

Mike, nothing is worse than that Judge Engaren. I just think that case in New York, the law clerk, the judge, the smirking for the camera, Leticia James, of all the cases, do you think that is perhaps the worst and the most obviously biased, Mike?

They're blatantly biased, but the problem is he's clearly going to rule against Trump and try to bankrupt his business. Thank God we have people like Alesse Stefanek, a congressional leader who filed an ethics complaint against this biased Manhattan judge, and we need to start fighting back against this welfare and election interference.

Scott and Mike, both of you. Thank you so much.

Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.