Colorado Judge Rules that Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but can still run

[NxNW]

Colorado judge rules Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ — but can still run for president ​

The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump. “The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification,” she wrote.

At we know for a fact now that Trump tried to overthrow the government. One wonders why so many people think that's OK.

 

[Fantine]

Was the judge a Trump appointee?

 

[Brihaha]

It does seem flabbergasting that this court somehow thinks the law wouldn't apply to a president. Maybe the law simply needs tweaking for clarity.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like this judge is afraid of the consequences of upholding a plain reading of the constitution. Certain people would feel very aggrieved. But at the same time she doenst want to hand Trump an "acquittal" on the insurrection.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The ruling is actually quite interesting. Copying my other post.

Takeaways from the blockbuster Trump ‘insurrectionist ban’ ruling​

The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.

“The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence,” she wrote.

[However]

The provision [in the 14th Amendment] says, “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,” if they took an oath to “support” the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

But it doesn’t say anything about the presidency. And furthermore, the presidential oath doesn’t say anything about “supporting” the Constitution – it’s to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

“Whether this omission was intentional, or an oversight is not for this Court to decide,” Wallace said, noting that Trump was the first president in US history to have never served in government before ascending to the White House, meaning he never swore the oath to “support” the Constitution that lawmakers and military officers take.

 

[Mayzoo]

Many, many people are held above (immune, etc) the law. He is but one. And no, it is not right.

I am amazed at how many people actually believe he will face any serious consequences for his illegal behaviour. He traditionally has a fall guy or gets a "naughty boy" slap on the wrist and IMO he will continue to do so. Maybe the courts will surprise me, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[public hermit]

That's not a great reading, to say the least. The phrase "hold any office" includes Presidency. To engage in insurrection goes against the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend." It's like she got paid off and made it work.

 

[Pommer]

That's not a great reading, to say the least. The phrase "hold any office" includes Presidency. To engage in insurrection goes against the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend." It's like she got paid off and made it work.

My take is that the good judge wanted the “blame” to fall elsewhere, and when overruled by the circuit, that blame will have been shifted.

 

[eleos1954]

Colorado judge rules Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ — but can still run for president​

The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” But she also found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump. “The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification,” she wrote.

At we know for a fact now that Trump tried to overthrow the government. One wonders why so many people think that's OK.

This judge is not presiding over the Trump case .... this is this judges opinion.

 

[Brihaha]

The ruling is actually quite interesting. Copying my other post.

Takeaways from the blockbuster Trump ‘insurrectionist ban’ ruling​

The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.

“The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence,” she wrote.

[However]

The provision [in the 14th Amendment] says, “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,” if they took an oath to “support” the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

But it doesn’t say anything about the presidency. And furthermore, the presidential oath doesn’t say anything about “supporting” the Constitution – it’s to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

“Whether this omission was intentional, or an oversight is not for this Court to decide,” Wallace said, noting that Trump was the first president in US history to have never served in government before ascending to the White House, meaning he never swore the oath to “support” the Constitution that lawmakers and military officers take.

Law sounds inadequate to allow provisions for a threat like this Donald Trump feller. The man has certainly exposed many deficiencies in our laws that fail to account for the destructive capabilities of children who get elected president! Hopefully we still have enough patriots in DC to fix these deficiencies that unbridled politicians like Donald will certainly exploit.

 

[Nithavela]

The ruling is actually quite interesting. Copying my other post.

Takeaways from the blockbuster Trump ‘insurrectionist ban’ ruling​

The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.

“The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence,” she wrote.

[However]

The provision [in the 14th Amendment] says, “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,” if they took an oath to “support” the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

But it doesn’t say anything about the presidency. And furthermore, the presidential oath doesn’t say anything about “supporting” the Constitution – it’s to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

“Whether this omission was intentional, or an oversight is not for this Court to decide,” Wallace said, noting that Trump was the first president in US history to have never served in government before ascending to the White House, meaning he never swore the oath to “support” the Constitution that lawmakers and military officers take.

I wonder what the founding fathers would say to that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder what the founding fathers would say to that.

'We only wrote the first ten; don't blame us!'

 

[JSRG]

It does seem flabbergasting that this court somehow thinks the law wouldn't apply to a president. Maybe the law simply needs tweaking for clarity.

It's not a Law, it's a Constitutional Amendment.

Sounds like this judge is afraid of the consequences of upholding a plain reading of the constitution. Certain people would feel very aggrieved. But at the same time she doenst want to hand Trump an "acquittal" on the insurrection.

Actually, as counterintuitive as it seems at first glance, there's a surprisingly reasonable case to be made that the presidency doesn't count as an officer of the United States. This blog post (admittedly not by a lawyer, but by someone who's clearly done a lot of research into this topic) goes into some detail on it:

An Officer and a Gentleman (and a President)

Daily Disqualification Update (29 Oct): Trump's Strongest Argument

decivitate.substack.com

While the above is admittedly not by a lawyer and thus perhaps lacks a professional shine, it is by someone who is a strong believer that Trump is ineligible so they are not exactly biased for Trump. They ultimately reject the argument the president isn't one, but say it's close and "I believe this is the strongest argument in Team Trump’s arsenal." Someone can read the post for a rather in-depth examination of it; I'm a bit hesitant to try to offer an overview. But I'll mention one point it notes: In regards to a "plain reading" of the constitution you cite, note that the Constitution (Article 2 Section 3) says the President "shall Commission all the Officers of the United States". A "plain reading" of this would indicate that since the President commissions all officers of the United States, the President doesn't seem to be one. Now, my link goes into some counterarguments on this, but again the "plain reading" of this would seem to declare that even if the Constitution refers to the president as officer multiple times, it rejects the idea that the President is specifically an "officer of the United States".

I'm not sure how much of the points in that post I cited are referred to in the opinion, unfortunately, because (as is often the case with these sorts of things), the article in the opening post and the articles I looked at after a quick search about the opinion don't bother to link to it. Maybe it's not public or something, but if not it's extremely annoying that articles specifically about a court opinion so frequently don't bother to link to the opinion in question. If I find one, I'll post a link.

 

[JSRG]

Was the judge a Trump appointee?

No, the judge (Sarah B. Wallace) was appointed by Jared Polis (governor of Colorado), who was a Democrat.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Judge_Appointments/2022/JD02%20-%20Bailey%20Wallace.pdf

 

[durangodawood]

...Actually, as counterintuitive as it seems at first glance, there's a surprisingly reasonable case to be made that the presidency doesn't count as an officer of the United States. This blog post (admittedly not by a lawyer, but by someone who's clearly done a lot of research into this topic) goes into some detail on it:

An Officer and a Gentleman (and a President)

Daily Disqualification Update (29 Oct): Trump's Strongest Argument

decivitate.substack.com

While the above is admittedly not by a lawyer and thus perhaps lacks a professional shine, it is by someone who is a strong believer that Trump is ineligible so they are not exactly biased for Trump. They ultimately reject the argument the president isn't one, but say it's close and "I believe this is the strongest argument in Team Trump’s arsenal." Someone can read the post for a rather in-depth examination of it; I'm a bit hesitant to try to offer an overview. But I'll mention one point it notes: In regards to a "plain reading" of the constitution you cite, note that the Constitution (Article 2 Section 3) says the President "shall Commission all the Officers of the United States". A "plain reading" of this would indicate that since the President commissions all officers of the United States, the President doesn't seem to be one. Now, my link goes into some counterarguments on this, but again the "plain reading" of this would seem to declare that even if the Constitution refers to the president as officer multiple times, it rejects the idea that the President is specifically an "officer of the United States".

I'm not sure how much of the points in that post I cited are referred to in the opinion, unfortunately, because (as is often the case with these sorts of things), the article in the opening post and the articles I looked at after a quick search about the opinion don't bother to link to it. Maybe it's not public or something, but if not it's extremely annoying that articles specifically about a court opinion so frequently don't bother to link to the opinion in question. If I find one, I'll post a link.

Thats pretty interesting. But the president is an officer of the US by any reasonable definition, as the guy notes. If the Const authors had taken the care to craft the text in lawyer-speak, they could have clarified a few things - like this, and the second amendment. Instead, we have some vagueness and loose ends, for better or worse. But its a better read.

 

[Brihaha]

Brihaha said:
It does seem flabbergasting that this court somehow thinks the law wouldn't apply to a president. Maybe the law simply needs tweaking for clarity.

JSRG said: It's not a Law, it's a Constitutional Amendment.

Brihaha replies: Right, and as such it allows laws to be refined and changed over time. This has happened 27 times. The last time was 1992 requiring congressional raises not take effect until after the next congressional election. We have 27 amendments ratified. They become law after ratification. I don't know why we are splitting hairs. Is our constitution, filled with amendments, considered the law of the land?

Any politician could have had the law amended over the past 230 years or whatever. We supposedly have had constitutional scholars work for us in congress. If this "amendment" is still vague enough for Mr Trump to escape accountability, it is intentional! Peace

 

[JSRG]

The ruling is actually quite interesting. Copying my other post.

Takeaways from the blockbuster Trump ‘insurrectionist ban’ ruling​

The 102-page decision was a win for Trump, but it read more like a condemnation.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace concluded – based on testimony of US Capitol Police officers, lawmakers, clips from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech and expert testimony about right-wing extremism – that Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection.

“The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence,” she wrote.

[However]

The provision [in the 14th Amendment] says, “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,” if they took an oath to “support” the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

But it doesn’t say anything about the presidency. And furthermore, the presidential oath doesn’t say anything about “supporting” the Constitution – it’s to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

“Whether this omission was intentional, or an oversight is not for this Court to decide,” Wallace said, noting that Trump was the first president in US history to have never served in government before ascending to the White House, meaning he never swore the oath to “support” the Constitution that lawmakers and military officers take.

Oh, I missed this before when going through the topic--unlike the various articles I looked at, the article you cite actually does link to the opinion. Imagine that! An article about a court opinion actually bothering to link to the court opinion. One would think that this would be standard practice, but it frustratingly isn't. Thanks for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At we know for a fact now that Trump tried to overthrow the government. One wonders why so many people think that's OK.

That's the judge's opinion lol not a fact.

 

[Pommer]

That's the judge's opinion lol not a fact.

It’s the Official Judgement of the Court, not some guy opining on a debate forum.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Also....does anyone still doubt that this is a blatant attempt to use the courts to defeat a political opponent? This is the sort of tactic used in totalitarian nations....not democracies.

This judge is a coward, but she isn't stupid. If Trump could be found guilty of incitement to riots (which would qualify as an insurrection) he would have been prosecuted for incitement to riot over a year ago in DC. No prosecutor had taken that case for 2 reasons....

1. It's unlikely to win. Without actually suggesting protesters riot, use violence, or otherwise engage in a display of force....it's not likely to win. In fact, the opposite happened when Trump told the protesters...

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

It's an uphill battle to claim he called fir violence when he literally called for the opposite. No prosecutor wants to embarass themselves making that argument.

2. We'd learn exactly what the federal government's involvement in the case was. Previous attempts by Congress to get FBI director Wray to just explain how many agents he had present have been stalled and denied by the FBI director. If we were talking about a dozen or two dozen...I don't think he'd hesitate to state that. If however, we find out that there was 100+ agents from the FBI alone and who knows how many from other agencies....suddenly we have a lot more questions regarding what exactly they were doing on the 6th in this crowd of "insurrectionists". We also would learn why the Capitol police didn't testify before Congress and scenes like this...

Jan. 6 video of Capitol rioter fist-bumping police raises questions

House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that his office would be releasing the complete archive of Capitol riot security footage.

www.newsweek.com

Where a "rioter" was escorted by Capitol police in handcuffs, had his handcuffs removed, and then "fist bumped" the cop would be the sort of thing Trump’s lawyers would be able to demand answers for.

I understand that critics of this footage claim it's "selectively edited"....but so is any footage of the event. There's a lot of hours of footage from a lot of different cameras. Every time more of the footage is shown....it appears less and less like an insurrection.