Below is my column in The Messenger on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. There are now over a dozen states considering similar demands from advocates to prevent voters from being able to vote for the current leading candidate for the presidency. In California, Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. It is a temptation that is irresistible for Democratic politicians in a race to the bottom of our rage politics.
Here is the column:
he Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion, making history in the most chilling way possible. A divided court barred Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot.
For months, advocates have been filing without success in various states, looking for some court to sign off on a dangerous, novel theory under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. They finally found four receptive jurists on one of the bluest state supreme courts in the land.
Even on a court composed entirely of justices appointed by Democratic governors, Colorado’s Supreme Court split 4-3 on the question. The majority admitted that this was a case “of first impression” and that there was “sparse” authority on the question. Yet, the lack of precedent or clarity did not deter these justices from making new law to block Trump from running. Indeed, the most controlling precedent appears to be what might be called the Wilde Doctrine.
In his novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” The four Colorado justices just rid themselves of the ultimate temptation and, in so doing, put this country on one of the most dangerous paths in its history.
The court majority used a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — that was written after the Civil War to bar former Confederate members from serving in the U.S. Congress.
In December 1865 many in Washington were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s onetime vice president, waiting to take the same oath that he took before joining the Southern rebellion. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had just died after whole states seceded into their own separate nation with its own army, navy, foreign policy and currency. So Congress declared that it could bar those “who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.
Indeed, despite the unrelenting efforts of many in the media and Congress, a post-January 6 Harvard study found that most of the rioters were motivated by support for Trump or concerns about the election’s fairness, not by a desire to rebel.
Even the Justice Department’s special counsel Jack Smith, who threw every possible charge at Trump in two indictments, did not believe he had sufficient basis to charge Trump with incitement or insurrection.
Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. What is most striking about the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is how the majority removed all of the fail-safes to extend the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to block Trump.
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a “true threat.”
It was inevitable that the Trump-ballot challengers would find four jurists in one state willing to follow something like the Wilde Doctrine. However, it is also important to note that a series of Democratic jurists previously refused to do so in various cases. They did so not out of any affinity to Trump but out of their affinity to the Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.
For many voters, however, the opinion will only reinforce Trump’s claims that Democrats are engaging in “lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls. Because of that, the opinion could not come at a worse moment. Trump is surging in opinion polls, and many Democrats are now openly saying they fear President Biden is about to be beaten in 2024. Not only is Trump beating Biden in many polls but he has a sizable lead among young voters.
For those voters, the Colorado ruling looks like a case of Biden being on the ropes when the referee just called the bout in his favor. Even if, as expected, these justices are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, many Americans will not forget what they will consider to be an effort to take away their vote. While these four justices offered their “first impression” in this dangerous opinion, the lasting impression of many voters is not likely to be good for the court or for Democrats.
In reaching this decision, these four justices admitted that “we travel in uncharted territory.” Sometimes that cannot be avoided, but in this case the Colorado Supreme Court steered off the constitutional map.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Age of rage politics? You mean like the way Professor Turley has spent Biden’s entire presidency wanting to impeach him & disqualify him from the 2024 ballot? Last March, Turley rendered his Fox News legal consultant verdict: “What is clear is that the Bidens ran one of the most lucrative and blatant influence peddling operations in history.” Then JT rushed to the cameras to appear as the GOP’s star witness at their first & so far only impeachment public hearing. But the Professor wants Hunter held in contempt for agreeing to testify under oath at a public hearing.
Let’s not forget that Turley vehemently opposed Trump being impeached for inciting an insurrection even though 10 House Republican voted to impeach Trump & 7 GOP Senators voted to convict Trump. Final tally: 57 Senators voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection & 43 Senators voted to acquit. Romney said several Republican Senators told him they wanted to vote to convict, but didn’t because they feared for the safety of their families.
We’ll soon see if Turley’s relentless campaign to impeach Biden ends up being a single-party impeachment, which Speaker Michael Johnson once strongly opposed: “The founders of this country warned against a single party impeachment for good reason. They feared that it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.”
Of course, that didn’t stop Marjorie Taylor Greene from filing articles of impeachment against Biden on his second day in office. Republicans have filed 15 articles of impeachment against Biden since Inauguration day.
Pass the popcorn. The Professor is up on his soapbox pontificating about age-of-rage politics again.
Steaming turd^^^^^
They should have impeached Joe Biden in the last century. And saved countless human lives.
Genocide Joe has ‘been wrong about every foreign policy’ since LBJ.
Don’t worry about Trump til the pigs fly and the fat lady sings . .. in the real world, Trump would be my butler.
*LBJ took the IRA down to 4th St. U.S.A. and what did he find .. . the youth of America on LSD.
Trump’s longest serving, hand-picked chief of staff, General John Kelly called Trump “a person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”
8 of Trump’s Cabinet members & advisors call him unfit for office. But hey, why pay attention to White House advisors who have first hand knowledge of Trump, right?
BTW, Robert Gates, who said Biden was wrong about every foreign policy, also said “Trump has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations. His thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”
Ridiculous
Biden is wearing diapers, he’s a front man for the Obama third term and you think Trump is dangerous? Here’s another clue, a lifer military officer is a government indoctrinated tool, most all. It’s really quite surprising, the ones that don’t tow the line end their careers.
“a lifer military officer is a government indoctrinated tool.”
It’s remarkable how much Trump defenders despise American generals & military officers who devote their entire lives to defending & protecting the United States of America. The unabashed hatred Trump defenders exhibit for any American who disagrees with them is hardly surprising, Traveler.
Oh, my!
The Facts and the Truth really hit a nerve in this TDS sufferer!
Romney said several Republican Senators told him they wanted to vote to convict, but didn’t because they feared for the safety of their families.
Ignoring the hyperbole, this is the proper way to get rid of a President. Representatives of the People being held accountable to the people. Not rob clad oracles handing down decisions canceling the will of the People. Today, the Dems are insistant that judges do the dirty work for congress. Congress has the power to refuse to certify Trump as President. Congress would be held accountable for their vote in 2 years. That is exactly the way a representative democracy is supposed to function.
Liz Cheney is free to voice her opinion and voters are free to judge her by her views.
Cheney is a beneficiary of the swamp, she attempted to protect the swamp from the light, President Trump wants to shine in the rot. Democrats and GOPe are very afraid of a President, not indentured to the swamp.
We got rid of Trump in a different, perfectly acceptable way: we voted him out of office. He lost, and hopefully will lose again.
Dream on, little pasty one.
What color is the sky in your world? Seriously, how are you even alive? Does someone remind you to breathe?
This ruling begs the question, who are the real insurrectionist in this country. You should not be fooled. This is a strategy concocted and wholly funded by the Democratic Party in order to nullify your vote. If they were willing to force feed the Russian Hoax to the public what makes you think that they would not rig an election by using Covid to change the election rules. Mark my words, if the Supreme Court rules against their action they will be demanding that the number of Justices on the court be expanded. Thank you Colorado for your donation to the Trump campaign.
“This is a strategy concocted and wholly funded by the Democratic Party in order to nullify your vote.”
Except that you are factually incorrect. Two republican members of the Federalists society are part of this suite. Hard to get more right wing than that. The republican party no longer exists. People who were members of said party are doing anything they can to dispose of trump. This is not a democratic operation. Besides, Trump has a history of loosing elections, either for himself or those he supports. Fine, put trump on the ballot, he has never received a majority of the vote, he will loose. But then again, trump seems to love losers.
Here are all of the moving parties in the CO case – which of these do you think are the republican members of the federalist society ?
Petitioners-Appellants/Cross-Appellees:
Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi
Wright, and Christopher Castilian,
v.
Respondent-Appellee:
Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,
and
Separately the Federalist society is NOT right wing – it is libertarianish. In left right terms – though ideology is multi demensional the federalists are losely to the left of Heritage and the right of CATO.
Separately – Trump has pretty much defeated the never Trumpers in the GOP.
Prof. Baude of the federalist society took the pro side of the debate in a recent Federalist society debate on the 14th amendment.
He did an excellent job with a weak argument – and admitted most of the weaknesses.
His best argument was – a public policy one – not an originalist one. Textualism/originalism leads to The congress can decide this in Jan 2025.
As Baude points out – because that is sort of the mess we had in 2020 – we do not want decisions being made at the last moment by congress when they can be made much earlier.
That is a very good public policy argument. It is NOT one supported by the text or the history of the 14th amendment.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically disqualifies any “…elector of President and Vice President…engaged in insurrection or rebellion…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.
In other words, anyone participating or supporting the January 6 insurrection can’t be part of the Electoral College choosing presidents or vice presidents. In addition to members of Congress and every other government official.
If Section 3 didn’t apply to presidents, then the Framers would have removed the “electors of President” clause from the 14th Amendment. The Framers instead included that part of Section 3.
Also factor in that the Framers of the Constitution only created the “office of the president” to correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation.
That precisely why the Framers listed Congress first in Article I of the Constitution and listed presidents second in Article II. In the USA presidents were not monarchs or dictators like Trump perceives himself. Presidents are not superior to the other two branches but co-equal with different authorities (providing checks & balances to prevent absolute power).
Steaming Turd^^^^
Section 3—->Section 5—->18 USC 2383
So we agree, section 3 specifically excludes the President and Vice President
It doesn’t. They are among the officers of the US.
Trump supporters don’t think of “officers of the US” think think in terms of “Dictator for life”. They could care less what the constitution says, only how Trump would destroy it.
This is not a trump supporters thing.
This is a con law thing – long ago the Supreme court decided that the president was not an “officer of the untied states”.
You can argue they were wrong, but it is what they decided, and you MUST argue they were wrong to impose the 14th amendment on the president.
We do not have to like the constitution or the prior precident. We can try to change it. we can argue it was wrongly decided.
But we can not pretend it does not exist.
No one wants Trump for life. Just for the next for years. After that DeSantis or Viveck or who knows.
Regardless Trump is younger than Biden and in better health than Biden – but he IS old. His life is not likely to be all that long.
When the term office is used else where in the Constitution the term excludes President.
iowan2: False, see
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/
DBB – the supreme court decided long ago that neither the president nor the vice president were officers of the united states.
You can disagree. You may even persuade me that they are wrong.
But it is the state of constitutional law. This is not some right wing theory – I do not even recall which party brought the decision about.
Anonymous, if what you say is true why hasn’t anyone who participated on Jan6 been charged with participating in an insurrection? Why isn’t Trump being charged with participating in an insurrection by any prosecutor. If you can find such a charge being present anywhere please inform us of your findings post haste. As much as you would like it to happen in this nation people are not found guilty by insinuation. Thank you for providing more information proving that you don’t think that this nation’s founding principles are of value. Your revelation helps us understand exactly who you are.
I’m pretty sure several people have been convicted seditious conspiracy. But you probably want the exact words, sedition. But then again the plain language of the 14th says nothing about conviction of sedition.
Funny how this business of nobody has been convicted of sedition keeps coming up. That is not even the question. Grabbing at straws much?
Thats just more of the problem with modern broken courts (sometimes on both sides).
The law on conspiracy is supposed to require an actual crime.
You can not be convicted of Conspiring with A to commit Crime B – unless A is convicted of crime B.
Also the conspiracy has to be to commit a crime.
14A s3 doesn’t say “charged with.” It says “engaged in.”
You are correct – it does not say charged. Therefore being Charged is insufficient, they must be convicted.
It also does not say – engaged in according to my next door neighbor.
Regardless – this is pretty simple – is insurrection a crime ? If you say it is – no one has been convicted, there is no insurrection and no one who can be barred.
If you say it isn’t – then the BLM riots are an insurrection, the Pro-HAMAS protests and riots are an insurrection.
If you define insurrection correctly and narrowly – you can not “Get trump”.
If you define it broadly – you get all kinds of people you did not intend.
Take you pick.
If you are going to try to find some intermediate position – what is the limiting principle in the 14th amendment that determines what is and is not an insurrection ?
If you claim the CO SC can decide – then the TX SC can also decide.
This is one of many reasons this goes down in flames – the decision is a hot mess that is poorly thought out and will blow up in everyone’s face.
It also says provided aide and comfort to an enemy.
Are you OK with the TX SC deciding what constitutes aid and comfort to an enemy ?
Biden gave 6B to a state sponsor of terror that ultimately contributed to an violent insurrection against a critical US ally.
In instance after instance you have been warned that if you go broad, if you do some stupid political thing for short run political gains, that you will have given the same power to your political oponents.
You get burned over and over, and still you keep pouring gasoline on the flame.
Aparently you do not know how to read. Elector != candidate. If the framers wanted presidents to be included – they could have said president and vice president – not electors. Contra your claim the omission is damning.
“Also factor in that the Framers of the Constitution only created the “office of the president” to correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation.”
What is it that you think you mean here.
Presidents are not monarch’s They are presidents, they have the power that the constitution gives to presidents.
You claim that the fact that congress is created in article I means they are superior – but then ceed they are co-equal.
Regardless, the cfact is that the framers of the 14th amendment – different from the founders listed who was subject to section 3.
They did not list the president or vice president. They could have. They did not. They listed others. As a rule of statutory and constitutional interpretation something missing from a list is presumed to be deliberately missing.
But more problematic is section 5 explicitly expects congress to enact this via legislation – which congress did. Arguably that legislation is no longer in effect, but even if it was – the power was never delegated to states.
And one of the issues the CO SC danced arround is that there is no CO election law on this. Neitehr the courts nor the CO executive can do this on their own. The self executing claim is garbage – government powers are never constitutionally self executing.
“. . . then the Framers . . .”
“The Framers” did *not* write 14.3. They did, however, write 5A and 6A.
You are now free to continue with your ignorance of American history, and with your cherry-picking of the Constitution.
Dear Prof Turley,
I think it’s more fear than ‘rage’ that motivates these people. These people believe, deeply, that Donald J. Trump is HITLER. Worse than Hitler, gingus Khan and the Black plague all together. I’m not kidding .. . seen it with my own eyes.
They will say or do anything to Stop Trump .. . and his MAGA hat minions.
Liz Cheney is afraid a 2nd Trump will ‘take the gloves off’ and ‘seize the reins of power’. Genocide Joe Biden’s entire campaign is devoted to the notion that ‘I’m Not Trump.’
In any case, by hook or by crook, they are definitely ‘going after’ the most maligned, twice-impeached president in history, but it remains to be seen whether Trump will ‘go after them’. He had a chance to go after them once upon a time .. . but I dont’ think that worked out very well.
*lies, damned lies and Bidenomics
Oh the ol’ Star Chamber rears its ugly head. Don’t like an opponent? Off with his head!! Politically, that is.l
Not just you don’t like him, but especially if he is trouncing you in the polls.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Gee, where would we be without Section 2
Part of the Colorado dissent is worth quoting. As a matter of objective law and constitutionally limited republic, it is spot on. This from a *democrat* judge:
“I cannot agree with the majority that the chimeric proceedings below gave President Trump process commensurate to the interest of which he has been deprived. Nor did the proceedings below protect the interest Coloradans have in voting for a candidate of their choosing. Of course, if President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado. But such a determination must follow the appropriate procedural avenues. Absent adequate due process, it is improper for our state to bar him from holding public office. More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis. Surely, this enlargement of state power is antithetical to the framers’ intent.”
— Justice Carlos Samour Jr.
Sam is the same guy who insists “the CO tactics are *identical* to those used by tyrannical countries,” while providing more evidence here about how the ruling is *different* from what occurs in tyrannical countries.
He didn’t quote from the ruling you imbecile. He quoted from the dissent.
The dissents are part of the ruling, you imbecile. I didn’t say “majority opinion.”
No, they are not. The ruling is the ruling. the dissent is the dissent.
This article is a little disingenuous. All serious legal scholars across the nation started discussing the possibility of the 14th Amendment being used against Trump after January 6th. As I noted yesterday, January 6th was NOT simply a riot. There is ample written and video evidence that this event was immaculately coordinated from ooperatives inside and outside the White House. The key provisions of this effort have resulted in Trump and a variety of his minions being charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct a official proceeding (certification of the election), obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy of rights. Jonathon knows Smith brought the charges he knows he can convict on. Thats how federal prosecutors work. They don’t bring charges that “might” result in a maybe. The firmly believe that Trump did these things and they also believe a conviction is almost certain. They don’t lose cases. He knows that.
Again, this is not irrational to take a look at the 14th Amendment here. No other president in history has coordinated a “riot” as well as coordinated fake electors at the state level. All in an effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Indeed, it has been reported across all major networks, including Fox, that Michigan has him on tape personally asking electors not to certify in that state. The most damning part is that he told the electors they would provide them with counsel. In the legal sense this is viewed as a bribe. The evidence continues to heavily mount. Barring his re-election, he and many of his minions are looking at federal and or state prison. Placed there by a jury of their peers.
What is most stunning is the fact we have to even discuss the 14th Amendment. Trump caused this. Think about that in context.
Thats how federal prosecutors work. They don’t bring charges that “might” result in a maybe.
Exactly the reason Smith/Obama did not bring charges of Insurrection.
A body with the power to act, heard the evidence, and voted to acquit on the charge of Insurrection.
Now the only people with power to act on the charge have refused to bring such a charge in court.
Now the only people that have no skin in the game, are free to spout off, having nothing to risk.
The plain text of the 14th Amendment doesn’t require that charges of insurrection be brought.
“Take a plain reading of the amendment 18 USC 2383. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”
“Take a plain reading of the amendment 2 USC 192. Nothing in there about indicted, or convicted.”
Gee, nothing in the “plain text” of these either.
Funny, the phrase “plain text” NEVER crossed the lips of you libtards until a week ago.
With out charges of insurrection, how can actions be identified as such?
You are using a term that has no definition. A core element of any crime, is the average person knows they are committing a wrong. But you refuse to identify objective elements. Then it is impossible to know if the elements have been met with out a formal proceeding.
Retard, there was a trial in CO to establish it.
Trump was not indicted, how could he be guilty of crime never charged
“As I noted yesterday, January 6th was NOT simply a riot.”
LMAO Who the f*ck are you? A steaming turd layer. A narcissistic one at that.
SECTION 5
Steaming turd from Jeff, who “noted” that it was more than a riot.
“Thats how federal prosecutors work. They don’t bring charges that “might” result in a maybe.”
But I, Jeff, noted that it was more than a riot.
So, I hereby, as Jeff the all-wise, declare that the burden of proof for 14A is “maybe”.
What a putz.
Confirmation bias rears its ugly head yet again.
LMAO no doubt! I bet the phrase “plain text” hadn’t crossed Jeff’s libtard lips in all his 19 years before today.
What is the evidence that anyone in the White House told the protestors to enter the Capitol? It is more likely that the FBI was behind that idea.
As former AG William Barr pointed out, the record in the trial court may not be sufficient for SCOTUS to bring finality to this issue. Congress should thus immediately pass legislation granting the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over Section 3 claims. Otherwise, it will be litigated in piecemeal fashion at the state level and risk further damage to the legitimacy of our presidential election process.
Our congress should pass a law, mandating only congress, by a vote of the House, by 2/3 majority can deny a person a position in govt.
Then they would also have to strike the current LAW, which is 18 USC 2383
Well, the left is already ignoring it. So it must be optional
Spoken like an idiot who has no clue who controls the Senate.
I believe there are more “red” states so bring it on, Democrats. Let’s remove tit for tat. No more America. Great Idea.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[3]
Gee, what would section 1 be without section 2
Their true colors are shining through. I am sure this is only the beginning of such tactics as panic sets in. Brace yourself for a tumultuous year.
E.M.
Agreed.
I expect them to come up with more absurd tactics as the election grows closer and Biden’s numbers continue to poll poorly. All in the name of saving democracy, their totalitarian attempts to interfere with the election will become more and more obvious. They have already been showing but a small part of that totalitarianism.
You said it correctly!
Section 1
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Gee, what would Sec 1 have been without Sec 2
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
Gee, what would sec 1 be without sec 2
In related news, Trump is on tape pressuring two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 election. The recordings were reviewed by The Detroit News. Will Trump face another indictment like the one in GA?
Steaming Turd ^^^^
“pressuring” in what way? He had no control over them.
DN: “On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they’d look “terrible” if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings”, saying “We can’t let these people take our country away from us,” and then confirming McDaniel’s statement that “If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. … We will get you attorneys.” Trump: “We’ll take care of that.” DN: “Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.” Would you rather that I say he tried to bribe them by confirming the offer of attorneys? OK.
How is the offer of legal assistance a bribe? It is not a monetary benefit. Trump recognized that these people would be sued by Democrats if they complied with his request and would need legal assistance.
In related news, Joe Biden is on tape pressuring Mykola Zlochevsky to pay him $5M for his assistance in getting the “son of a b*tch” fired.
He isn’t.
He is
Whats the crime again? Does the Wayne county Board fo Canvassers have the power to to not sign the certification? They must. They have the power to sign, they would have the power not to sign, (Sounds analogous to the power of the Vice President, and EC votes).
Urging elected officials to act, using their enumerated powers is not a crime.
Urging them to act in exchange for getting them lawyers is bribery.
Unions bribe their members by the Millions.
“Join the Union and we will pay for your defense” That means the end of Unions
Conservative lawyers are always slow to the game of lawfare. They still cling to the quaint idea of unbiased judges making rulings based upon a dispassionate analysis of the law and not upon their personal biases. That is why GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are always the swing vote. DEM presidents only appoint justices with a political agenda willing to make results oriented decisions. The GOP might nominate conservative justice but might also nominate a moderate with an impressive Ivy League background willing to compromise in the name of judicial comity. The liberal justices are always a reliable vote on political hot topics, the GOP nominees, not so much. But I think most in the GOP are starting to get wise to the game, even the old turtle. They are willing to to fight the nomination fights, even if they are still addicted to the Ivies. A Catholic graduate of an Ivy, is still an Ivy graduate…
The same with the indictment of candidates, the taking candidates off ballots, and the bankrupting of opposing counsel. These are things that would never cross the mind of a conservative lawyer. What’s the point of winning these battles if you destroy the republic in the process. DEM lawyers have no such compunction. So, Caesar may be obnoxious and overbearing, Brutus, but the alternative is Civil War and Augustus, not a return the the Republic…
Infamous “justice” names to remember (or maybe forget forever):
“Justices” Monica Márquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart made up the majority.
Take note.
Yesterday I commented on the other blog post about the same subject that SCOTUS would “kick the can a little.
“- Agree to hear the case in Spring and let Trump be on the CO ballot for now (and any other states where this becomes a primary-season issue – looking at you Maine)
“- Then Release a 6-3 opinion in May based on some very narrow grounds (e.g., he was never convicted of or even charged with “insurrection”)”
I’ve thought of really really narrow grounds SCOTUS could apply after the primary season (which is becoming increasinly irrelevant to who competes come November). None of us vote for a specific person in presidential elections. We vote for Electors. In those states that care, the judges can bar Electors that “enabled an insurrection.” I’m sure there will be plenty of other people who did not who will take their places on the ballots
No Denise,
It will be a 9-0.
I doubt KB is that slow or hates Trump enough to violate her canons.
They won’t kick the can down the road.
-G
What is it about the court following the Constitution that you don’t understand?
“follow”…look it up
Sec 3—–>Sec 5—->18 USC 2383
‘For many voters, however, the opinion will only reinforce Trump’s claims that Democrats are engaging in “lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls.’
This is so patently, blatantly obvious at this point you’d have to be delusional to the point of needing professional help to think otherwise (and honestly: I think a lot of younger people do. I do not know how we fix that). I am gobsmacked at the selfishness and small mindedness of so many in our country. This has got to stop before everything goes over the cliff, and we are damn close. This rise of totalitarianism in the West is no longer just a theory.
James,
Well said.
The new woke leftist Democrat party looks more and more like 1930s Germany, Mao’s Culture Revolution and with the Colorado SC decision, more in common with Iran.
The fact many in the Democrat party chant “From river to sea,” is quite telling.
They are doing everything they can to foster the rise of totalitarianism. I fear they have put us on the road to civil war with their anti-Constitutional zeal.
@James , @UpState,
You have a group so delusional in their beliefs that they are willing to do anything. They believe that the ends justify the means.
They are getting desperate and desperation leads to dangerous acts.
-G
(Gumby)
@Upstate
They most certainly have, and no other party has done so much in service of conflict as our dems since the original Civil War. 2024 is going to be a monstrosity, I fear. These people are insane.
James says…”“lawfare” to achieve in the courts what they cannot achieve in the polls.’”
I think you have it backwards. In the 2016 election, trump came in second in popular vote (66 million to 63 million) and won in the electoral vote (306 to 232). In the 2020 election, trump lost both popular vote and electoral vote. In the 2020 election for Georgia Senator, trumps candidate lost. In the 2022 election there was a forecast red wave that was going to see Republicans win everything everywhere all at once. They didn’t. In fact of the people trump named and supported, most lost. Trump has a terrible record of winning elections. He himself has never won a majority of popular votes in 2 elections. So what do you mean “they cannot achieve in the polls”? It is trump and his acolytes that have a problem “achieving anything at the polls”.
Bob-on-my-knob with another steaming turd^^^^
Bob you wrote a lot of words. All of them irrelevant. The popular vote for President is meaningless.
This is the hierarchy of Power for the United States
The People
The States
Federal govt.
In this case, the People through their chosen electors, should retain their power to choose the President
“Bob you wrote a lot of words. All of them irrelevant. The popular vote for President is meaningless.”
Didn’t I point out that he won the electoral vote? Pretty sure everything I wrote was correct. How did trumps support for the Georgia Senators work out? Failure, they lost. How did his support for Arizona elections in 2022 work out? Failure, they lost. How has Mom for Liberties candidates worked out? Failure, they loose. Go ahead, put trump on the ballot, he will loose. My point was that trump has a history of loosing for both him and those he supports. what is to fear from him running again? He will loose.
Bob, repeating irrelevant stuff, does not make it relevant. I know CNN does that gambit, but it doesn’t work