A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot

[sl8]

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot

NOVEMBER 17, 202311:59 PM ET
By The Associated Press

DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency.

The lawsuit, brought by a left-leaning group on behalf of a group of Republican and independent Colorado voters, contended that Trump's actions related to the attack ran afoul of a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents anyone from holding office who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution.

The decision by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court last week said Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have sole choice over who appears, while a Michigan judge ruled that Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section 3 applies to Trump.

In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. Normally, that would be enough to disqualify him under Section 3, but she said she couldn't do so for a presidential candidate.

[...]

[duhneece]

1. Coward

She’s a coward.

[JohnSJ]

2. without a doubt.

[MOMFUDSKI]

3. It will take just one Judge to rule against

Orange menace to get it to the SC. Then we will have our answer. Quicker the better. Then the other states can act or not. This Judge didn’t have the STUFF. Damn.

[gab13by13]

4. This judge ruled that Trump was not a federal official,

that ruling is laughable and it will be shot down if appealed.

Trump is still being treated with kid gloves.

[gibraltar72]

5. How many levels of justice?

[gab13by13]

6. Trump violated the Hatch Act

while he was president, violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Today he violates campaign finance laws, the IRS is afraid to go after him even after all of his financial fraud has been exposed.

King Donald, the 1st King of Magatland.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. This is how we're going to lose this nation.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig explain why the Colorado 14th Amendment decision is wrong

Link to tweet

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. Lock his stinky orange ass up

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. CO judge's 'bizarro' Trump eligibility ruling ripped apart by constitutional law experts

This opinion is very questionable. It makes no sense that the POTUS is the only official who is not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I agree with Prof. Tribe and Judge Luttig's analysis

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-ineligible-2024/

Former federal Judge Michael Luttig and constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe spoke with host Ali Velshi less than 24 hours hour the ruling came down where Wallace agreed the former president took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection but didn't feel he was covered by wording in Section Three that would bar him from running for office.

According to Tribe, the judge made an "egregious error" in her ruling which Tribe also labeled as "bizzaro."

"The court did egregiously error in holding that the office of the president is not an office under the United States, turning constitutional interpretation upside down, by finding the unambiguous text of Section Three ambiguous because of a sliver of debate history that is not only itself ambiguous, but is rendered singularly unpersuasive by other exchanges in the debate history," Luttig explained. "That reflects the understanding that the office of president is of course an office under the United States, from which a person can be disqualified by Section Three."

'You suggested that this was a narrow interpretation of section three," he told the MSNBC host. "It is that and more. It is the narrowest possible interpretation of Section Three, it's the interpretation urged on the court by the former president's lawyers. But it's simply incorrect as a matter of constitutional law."

?si=xtN9DpghIs86BaeS

[RobertDevereaux]

11. Yes. This is a refreshing take on what happened in CO.

I hear that the CO Supreme Court will take this up on Monday the 20th. Expedited.