Name: This Trump trial in Colorado will determine whether fraudsters can run for office - Worldtimetodays
Brand: worldtimetodays.com
SKU: worldtimetodays-com-17
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

This Trump trial in Colorado will determine whether fraudsters can run for office - Worldtimetodays

preview

Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers don’t seem to understand the concept of disqualification. This means you are not allowed to play.In the Colorado lawsuit seeking to disqualify him from voting in the state for the 2024 presidential election, Trump’s argument amounts to asserting that voters — not courts — should decide whether he can win back the presidency. As his attorney, Scott Gessler gets to the point: “(This lawsuit) seeks to destroy the opportunity … for millions of Coloradans – Colorado Republicans and independent voters – to elect and vote for the presidential candidate they want.”In a Minnesota lawsuit seeking a court declaration that Trump is disqualified from running for president again and demanding that the Minnesota Secretary of State disqualify Trump from the March 5, 2024 presidential nomination primary, Trumps prosecuted Lawyers use a similar tact. She wrote in legal arguments that “the federal Constitution and Minnesota law place the resolution of this political question where it belongs: the democratic process, in the hands of either Congress or the people of the United States.”To illustrate the problem with Trump’s core arguments, all it takes is a look at sports analogies. Imagine Rosie Ruiz, who was disqualified from the 1980 Boston Marathon for riding the subway for part of the race, arguing that she should have kept her win because she still crossed the finish line first . Or Mike Tyson – disqualified after biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear in a boxing match in 1997 – arguing that the fight should have continued. The whole point is to enforce the rules and not let scammers compete.The relevant rules for these cases can be found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment— which bars from federal office any person who has previously taken an oath in support of the Constitution but has “participated in an insurrection or rebellion against it, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”The Minnesota case, filed by Free Speech for People (which has also filed suit in Michigan) on behalf of a group of Minnesota voters, is scheduled for a hearing before that state’s Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court has asked the parties to specifically address issues including whether Congress would have to take action to implement the Disqualification Clause and whether the ban applies to presidents.However, disqualification likely does not require prerequisites such as congressional action or a criminal conviction. As leading constitutional law scholars, Professor Laurence Tribe and former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig have done so pointed outThe Insurrection Clause is “self-executing” and does not require conditions such as removal from office or a criminal conviction.The Colorado case involves six voters who were elected with the help of the Watchdog group The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) argue that Trump’s actions in inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol make him ineligible to run for president again. CREW lawyers have previously been successful in with the exception of a district commissioner in New Mexico after being convicted of entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.In Colorado, Trump’s lawyers appear to be bowing to the fact that they must defend the case on substance, even as they argue that the very idea of ​​disqualification should not be allowed. Trump has already lost a motion to dismiss the case and his lawyers have begun presenting evidence that they hope will show that Trump did not in fact incite or incite violence on January 6.Essentially, the case will be decided by which side convinces the judge — there is no jury — that Trump’s actions did or did not incite the attack.Witnesses such as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and D.C. Police Officer Daniel Hodges testified about their experiences on the day of the Jan. 6 attack. Swalwell reported that he and his colleagues monitored Trump’s tweets because they “connected the president’s tweets to our own security in the chamber and also to the integrity of the ongoing proceedings.” Officer Hodges testified that he heard the attacking crowd chanting “Fight for Trump.”To counter such evidence, Trump’s lawyers have so far relied on witnesses like Kash Patel – the former chief of staff to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller – who claimed he personally witnessed Trump deploying 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard troops to support law enforcement approved. Patel’s statement The Department of Defense’s findings that Trump never issued such an order and the committee’s January 6 findings, which included Acting Secretary Miller’s statement that such an order was never issued, appear to be in clear contradiction.Ultimately, all of these disqualification clause cases will likely end up in the United States Supreme Court. But SCOTUS, like any appellate court, is intended to concern itself primarily with the interpretation and application of the law, not with the determination of facts. That’s what makes the evidence currently being presented in Colorado so important.If the court there bases a disqualification of Trump on facts established from testimony and other evidence, those factual findings, for the most part, cannot be disputed by any appellate court. The appeal court cannot agree with the legal conclusions, not the factual ones.For example, an appeal of Trump’s disqualification in Colorado that made it all the way to SCOTUS could be reversed based on certain legal conclusions, such as that the provision does not apply to presidents because they are not “federal officials” – a view that represented by Trump’s lawyers. However, SCOTUS is unlikely to reverse unless the evidence supports the conclusion that Trump incited the Jan. 6 violence.Given the current ultra-conservative majority that controls SCOTUS, Trump could find support there if efforts to disqualify him gain traction. But even if that happens, these lawsuits provide an invaluable service to our democracy and are a kind of stress test for the system.One expert who testified in Colorado about the applicability of the 14th Amendment in this case was Professor Gerard Magliocca of Indiana University. Magliocca wrote in 2021 that “the violent mob that carried the Confederate flag into the Capitol, an invasion that Robert E. Lee never succeeded in, should be forced to confront the only constitutional provision specifically directed at those who helped raise that flag.” “to carry into battle – and against anyone else who took part in this uprising with them.”This confrontation is currently taking place in the cases of Colorado, Minnesota, and Michigan—perhaps more to come—as ordinary citizens stand up for the rules of our Constitution.

Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers don’t seem to understand the concept of disqualification. This means you are not allowed to play.In the Colorado lawsuit seeking to disqualify him from voting in the state for the 2024 presidential election, Trump’s argument amounts to asserting that voters — not courts — should decide whether he can win back the presidency. As his attorney, Scott Gessler gets to the point: “(This lawsuit) seeks to destroy the opportunity … for millions of Coloradans – Colorado Republicans and independent voters – to elect and vote for the presidential candidate...

This Trump trial in Colorado will determine whether fraudsters can run for office - Worldtimetodays

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS