What to know about the 14th Amendment Trump disqualification trial in Colorado

Link

An unprecedented trial begins on Monday in Colorado, attempting to remove Donald J. Trump from the election ballot due to his involvement in the US Capitol insurrection. Never before in American history has a former president aided a conflict against the US government, and never before has this question been raised in courts.

Will it go anywhere? Who knows. This is so untested, nobody knows which way it could go. The Supreme Court has rejected taking on these cases directly and will wait for one to work its way up to them, so that will be the ultimate test, but nonetheless, this is very interesting and should be watched and written about.

A trial to determine whether the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” applies to former President Donald Trump is set to begin Monday in Denver, a historic but likely long-shot case that could block him from Colorado’s presidential ballot in 2024.

Six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters filed the lawsuit in early September with the backing of a liberal watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. They’re arguing that Trump is disqualified from serving as president again because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

The challengers have scored a series of pretrial victories, defying expectations by defeating several motions by Trump and the Colorado GOP to throw out the case.

The trial begins tomorrow, and here are the main things the court will try to determine. All of these are important questions and will most likely come before the Supreme Court eventually:

Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace had spelled out some of the key questions for trial.

• What is the definition of “engaged” and “insurrection”?

• Did Trump engage in an insurrection?

• Is the so-called insurrectionist ban self-executing, or does Congress need to take action before a candidate is disqualified?

• Does Griswold have the power under Colorado law to exclude a candidate from the ballot based on federal constitutional considerations?

• Does the ban apply to US presidents, or only to other officials?

Five ENORMOUS questions! We can argue over it day and night, but this is how it will be decided. What is an insurrection, according to the law? How does one legally participate in it, what do you have to do to become a part of it? Does organizing it but not being physically present count? Is the 14th Amendment self-executing, as suggested by conservative scholars, or is it not? Does this all even apply to the president? Why not if it doesn't?

a reply to: Mahogani

If it reaches SCOTUS, I fully expect them to hand it off to Congress to write legislation on the issue since SCOTUS will claim that they only uphold the law and are not responsible for writing or rewriting it.

It's going to be another cluster, just like the 2020 election fraud hot potato that no one dare touches or decides on out of fear.

If they were going to nail him for something they would have already. This bread and circus revolving around Trump is getting oh so predictable. Trump is a puppet for the agitprop psyop the alphabet agencies are perpetrating on the public right now.

I have a feeling he'll be president in 2025, it seems to fit the pattern. He'll win and there will be yet another election fraud scandal where the script is flipped.

Israel-Palestine, here we come.

It's not going to go anywhere. At this point it is so late that it's just election interference. Considering all the stress this stuff has put on Trump and his age and health ... he isn't looking so good these days. He looks OLD now. Worn. All these lawsuits just may give him a coronary.

a reply to: Mahogani


If January 06 was an "insurrection", as defined by the 14th Ammendment, did Trump "participate"?


Cassidy Hutchinson testified that she was told Trump scuffle with his Secret Service driver when said driver refused to drive Trump to the Capitol, ostensibly to lead the rioters.

Her testimony has not been, publicly, substantiated, and many of Trump's supporters claim she fabricated the story.


However! If Hutchinson's claim was shown to be true, Could Trump not claim that the intensity of his demand was due to his overwhelming desire to Dissuade the mob from attack?

Opportunity missed.

As it stands, the incident, again if true, leads one to wonder as to Trump's intent.



The 14th also states that one could be held guilty of insurrection if one "gives aid and comfort" to insurrectionists.


Once delivered to the White House, and while watching the melee at the Capitol play out, Trump delayed issuing any statement, or orders, to quell the riot, or the rioters. He unquestionably had the authority to act.


Does his delaying to do so, for more than an hour, constitute "giving aid and comfort" to insurrectionist forces?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Literally every scandal surrounding Trump is "up for interpretation". That's not by chance, everything he says and does is calculated, he's here to cause as much chaos as possible. That's why you have millions of people constantly fighting over what "really" happened in the countless scandals revolving around him. That's his role in this whole crap shoot, he's the wedge being driven between the American people. He's the "trump card" created by the elites to stop the people from coming together against a common enemy, THEM.

Notice how Trump was mainly focused on the corporate sponsored "culture war" that has sprung up in the past decade or so and not actual issues like campaign finance laws and money in politics or Congressional term limits. He didn't make a peep about any of those VERY IMPORTANT issues. Not a peep, he was too busy stoking the culture war fire on Twitter.

He's a giant distraction getting in the way of people coming together. He's not the only one though, far from it, but one of the main ones for sure.

a reply to: Mahogani

What is an insurrection, according to the law? How does one legally participate in it, what do you have to do to become a part of it?

Were the Floyd riots an Insurrection? They went after government buildings too.

No. It was a bunch of easily lead disillusioned Trump Cult of Personality folks reacting to their boogeyman narrative.

Does organizing it but not being physically present count?

Sure. If you can prove he planned it and then lit the flame. But the Trump supporters that were there are the types to think their god-sent savior is giving them messages because some letter says so. It's not hard to light that flame. He could do everything but and they would be assuming what he meant, at least legally.

And then they all followed the leader like a 19 year old National Guard soldier that starts shooting because the guy next to him did after over-reacting.

Is the 14th Amendment self-executing, as suggested by conservative scholars, or is it not?

No. Well it might be idealized as such, but no. They are going to have to remove Trump from politics by force. He's not gonna lose. He's not the type.

An attempt to remove would him would end up with him saying something like this on TwiXer:

"My fellow Americans. The corrupt DOJ will not succeed in there attempts to deprive America what it wants and voted for in the poles. We will fight. I urge everyone to fight. Do not let corrupt special interest dictate our democracy."

Does this all even apply to the president?

Mixed. If convicted it would most likely apply. But then there will be appeal after appeal after appeal, and then a few more. So while they could, the process to do so would be made harder by Trump's appeals to any judgement rendered.

Why not if it doesn't?

Redundant question answered by previous responses.

Conclude least agreed with response to those questions.

a reply to: Mahogani

• Is the so-called insurrectionist ban self-executing, or does Congress need to take action before a candidate is disqualified?

As far as this question goes: Seems self evident to be self-executing.
Any exception must be approved by Congress, not the obverse.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
It's not going to go anywhere. At this point it is so late that it's just election interference. Considering all the stress this stuff has put on Trump and his age and health ... he isn't looking so good these days. He looks OLD now. Worn. All these lawsuits just may give him a coronary.

The Democrats would dance in the streets!

a reply to: Mahogani

Never before in American history has a former president aided a conflict against the US government...

And it still hasn't happened to this day.

a reply to: Klassified

“ If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize .”..........Voltaire

a reply to: Mahogani

Media people who say an "Insurrection" occurred on January 6, 2021 are starting off on the wrong foot, by demonstrating how dumb they are.

Not even our dysfunctional Satan-owned Justice department has gone that far out on the limb in charging protestors.

a reply to: FlyersFan

There would not be so many efforts to "stop Trump" ahead of Nov 2024, if Joe Biden wasn't in such bad shape mentally, physically, and legally.

-OR-

If the Democrat's "Election Fraud Organization" candidate Biden referenced in October 2020, was still functional.

As things stand now, unless there is a legal way for Joe Biden to stay in office, the dangrous SOB is a lame duck in 12 months and 7 days.

There would not be so many efforts to "stop Trump" ahead of Nov 2024, if Joe Biden wasn't in such bad shape mentally, physically, and legally.

-OR-

If the Democrat's "Election Fraud Organization" candidate Biden referenced in October 2020, was still functional.

As things stand now, unless there is a legal way for Joe Biden to stay in office, the dangrous SOB is a lame duck in 12 months and 7 days.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Or, just here me out, maybe the efforts against Trump are because he broke laws? What a novel concept right? You think Joe Biden is in trouble legally? how so? Seriously, how so?

A legal way for Biden to stay in office? you mean like winning reelection?

In related news, this Thursday, the case for removal begins in Minnesota, before the state Supreme Court. It will run parallel to this one in Colorado.

Regardless of what they rule in either one, we can be 100% sure it will get appealed and eventually make it to the highest court.

But these are the first two major cases we should keep an eye on. Many questions the Supreme Court will have to focus on will be discussed in detail in these lower courts first.

a reply to: Mahogani

My guess is SCOTUS will defer to the lower court's ruling, if they even decide to hear the case. The Constitution is pretty clear cut on states having autonomy to run elections.

originally posted by: buckstopper

There would not be so many efforts to "stop Trump" ahead of Nov 2024, if Joe Biden wasn't in such bad shape mentally, physically, and legally.

-OR-

If the Democrat's "Election Fraud Organization" candidate Biden referenced in October 2020, was still functional.

As things stand now, unless there is a legal way for Joe Biden to stay in office, the dangrous SOB is a lame duck in 12 months and 7 days.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Or, just here me out, maybe the efforts against Trump are because he broke laws? What a novel concept right? You think Joe Biden is in trouble legally? how so? Seriously, how so?

A legal way for Biden to stay in office? you mean like winning reelection?

We've been hearing how President Trump broke laws, committed treason, etc etc for 7 years..and yet today he is still innocent.

It now appears the people who are making the accusations are the stupid ones.. for continuing to believe what is proved false over and over and over again, by law enforcement and courts.

The accusers credibility is now totally 100% shot.

a reply to: Mahogani

this reminds me of the 2016 election and the dems trying to get electors to vote for hillary

just more tds and screeching

If he is such a loser with no followers and no chance...why do they want to block him? It is a waste of time, money and resources for these states.

FBI found no evidence of insurrection. They are the US Domestic Police. Case Closed. It was the Democrats who created a House Committee after the Senate voted no to an investigation based on no insurrection.

These are facts. The person convicted of being the mastermind was not even in the city when it happened. We have all seen communication Trump had on 1/6 that was suddenly removed from Twitter and he was shut out of everything.

So tell me where is says a President cannot run based on the 14th Amendment.

‘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.'”

It says you cannot be an elector of a President. That was because they did not want the Electoral college to be comprised post Civil War. The president is not an 'officer of the US'. He is not part of a state executive branch.

You could 'try' to push any office, but why denote Congress but not POTUS. Those I would argue as cabinet posts.

Folks, there is nothing in the 14th that states a president can be kept from running again.