Trump’s attorney - former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler - says there’s no evidence that Trump intended to incite violence and violence, he says, doesn’t equal an insurrection.
“I would say as if the petitioners’ case the foundation of it… is… it is rotted… it is a rotten foundation… the Jan. 6 report was originally used for political purposes to… sort of… an election issue… and that has failed I mean, like it or not for the office, president Trump remains reliable in many instances considered a leading candidate for the presidency,” he said.
First off, what a disaster of a sentence. Second, who gives a shit if he’s a leading candidate for the presidency? Our country was founded on the idea that no one is above the law, no matter how popular you are. If you want the 14th amendment to not apply because he is so popular, then you create an amendment to nullify it. You don’t just shrug your shoulders and go “oh jeez, we can’t enforce this because he’s popular.”
Fuck these soft on crime Republicans.
Ammendment: anyone who has at least 1 supporter and is running for president, or intends to run for president, is not bound by the 14th Ammendment.
Well, the first decision. This will go to the Supreme Court.
Though why should the Supreme Court have say in the state’s decision? I thought states’ rights were some kind of untouchable thing
It’s an interpretation of the Constitution written explicitly to keep out people who committed high crimes against the US government. The venue is the state of Colorado because of how the state gets to run its own elections, but the interpretation will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. After it goes through appeals.
Based on nothing more than your wording here, this seems like a tall order. I believe he was impeached and acquitted of high crimes by the senate. As much as that is total bullshit, it seems like if your wording is accurate then this is probably not going anywhere.
That said, your comment here is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone explain it as “people who committed high crimes,” so that definition is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Well, I consider it a “high crime.” The wording in the Fourteenth Amendment differs, but only in that it’s specific in which high crimes it’s talking about.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Decisions are based on US Constitution interpretation. There is only one place than can really do that.
Not true. There are many places but the highest court has the final say.
I think they’re counting on it going to the state supreme court first. The SCOTUS might not even take it up if it gets that far.
Primaries aren’t the place to be fighting this. Sadly the Democratic Party and GOP are private entities. They could easily say “fuck your, this is who we choose” and that’s that. Where the fights need to be taking place are on the general ballots as he doesn’t belong there. But these primary arguments are pointless and just embolden him with each ruling in his favor.
I think Colorado is for the general ballot.
Interesting. The article literally says “primary ballot”
Fair point, I sincerely thought it was for the main ballot. That’s disappointing and will probably go trump’s way then. My mind went primary as main, not for the primaries.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Denver District Court judge is expected to decide this week whether former President Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot.
Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the petitioners, argues that Trump engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“I would say as if the petitioners’ case the foundation of it… is… it is rotted… it is a rotten foundation… the Jan. 6 report was originally used for political purposes to… sort of… an election issue… and that has failed I mean, like it or not for the office, president Trump remains reliable in many instances considered a leading candidate for the presidency,” he said.
The trial - which ended two weeks ago - included testimony from D.C. riot police, rally goers, constitutional experts, and two members of congress.
If they can keep Trump off the primary ballot in enough states, they hope to keep him from getting the needed delegates to secure the republican presidential nomination.
Similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment have failed recently in Michigan and Minnesota.
The original article contains 348 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 44%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I thought you brutalized that quote. Turns out I was wrong, it’s unedited.
by
Trump’s attorney - former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler
That’s their defense attorney quality.
