Isn't That Very Illegal?
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung: “We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges. These cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats who know Crooked Joe Biden is a failed president on the fast track to defeat.” He left something out. Judge Sarah Wallace’s ruling held that Señor T “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect [his] speech [and] acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.” Cheung didn’t address that part of the ruling.
In a long Twitter thread on Friday, Republican former Appeals Court J. Michael Luttig noted that Wallace “found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president's disqualification under Section 3. But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an ‘office under the United States’ and that the former president was not an ‘officer of the United States’ and did not take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States’ in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
“It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation,” continued Luttig, tearing Wallace a new asshole, “that the Presidency of the United States is not an ‘office under the United States.’ It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that's possible, that the former president did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United State’ within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath ‘to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America's democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office in rebellious violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency.”
On Saturday, Patrick Marley reported it pretty straight: “A judge on Friday ruled Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, but decided that he is not barred from appearing on the primary ballot in Colorado” and that it was the first ruling that Señor T “had participated in an insurrection… Denver District Judge Sarah Wallace wrote that Trump ‘acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence.’ And, she concluded, ‘that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore engaged’ in insurrection.’ An appeal is expected and could ultimately be resolved by the Colorado Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Although Wallace found that Trump engaged in insurrection, she determined Section 3 does not apply to him. Section 3 refers to some offices by name as well as those who are an “officer of the United States,” but does not specifically mention the presidency.
Wallace determined those who wrote Section 3 “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”
The judge also determined that the amendment’s provision technically applied to those who swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. The oath Trump took when he was sworn in after he was elected in 2016 was to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
Wallace wrote she did not want to disqualify someone from office “without a clear, unmistakable indication” that that was what those who wrote the 14th Amendment intended.
Even as she ruled in Trump’s favor, Wallace was unsparing in her description of his behavior before, during and after the attack on the Capitol. She found Trump has a “history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence” and knew his supporters were willing to engage in violence.
“The evidence shows that Trump not only knew about the potential for violence, but that he actively promoted it and, on January 6, 2021, incited it,” she wrote.
Luttig and Lawrence Tribe wrote that Trump had disqualified himself from ever being president again. They were on with Ali Velshi yesterday:
And Trump headed out to Iowa after the ruling— polling showing him 36 points ahead of DeSantis— among likely GOP caucus attendees in the latest poll from Iowa State and Civiqs.