from Revolver News:
The corrupt regime has violated every basic principle of decency, every premise of self-government, and every standard of justice for so long and so often that the public has become largely inured to the latest outrage. And yet the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision to exclude Trump—the front-runner in the 2024 presidential race, mind you—from the ballot stands out for its stupidity, shortsightedness, and maliciousness even in this environment.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The 200+ page decision is a work of such slop that it makes Roe v. Wade look like a paragon of principled and coherent legal reasoning by comparison. The theory of the case is that Trump is constitutionally prohibited from returning to the White House on the basis of the following “Section 3” provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War:
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The language does not make clear whether the provision even applies to the office of the presidency, and in fact, the district court opinion to which this decision responds ruled that it doesn’t apply. Of course, the critical question is not just whether the section applies to the presidency but whether Donald Trump in fact engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. This is where things become flatly ridiculous. Trump clearly did nothing illegal or even inappropriate in his speech on January 6th. His language was well within the bounds of ordinary political rhetoric, and his exhortation to the crowd to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” is entirely unobjectionable (contrast that to Ray Epps’ exhortation that the crowd break the law and go into the Capitol). The notion that Trump’s behavior would rise to the level of an “insurrection” or “rebellion” is still more absurd when one understands the Civil War context of the provision. At least now we can better understand the ultimate aim of Biden’s preposterous claim that January 6 is the worst “attack on democracy since the Civil War.”
At any rate, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision overturned the district court’s ruling that Section 3 doesn’t apply to presidents but upheld the district court’s finding that Trump is guilty of insurrection. On that basis, the decision concludes that Trump isn’t constitutionally eligible to be president and is therefore excluded from the ballot—never mind the fact that Trump was never convicted of insurrection in court and that the sham J6 charges against him don’t even include “seditious conspiracy,” though it is quite likely, especially in light of the Colorado decision, that these will come in a superseding indictment.
As ridiculous as the “Section 3” legal theory is, other far-left states are eager to jump on the bandwagon in order to protect democracy by excluding the front-runner for the 2024 race from appearing on the ballot. California’s lieutenant governor recently vowed to explore every legal option to exclude Trump from the ballot, for instance.
More interesting than the sham legal theory behind the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is the organization behind it called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). As the organization boasts on its website, CREW is responsible, along with a handful of law firms, for bringing the cases in question to the Colorado Supreme Court. CREW might be familiar to Revolver readers for the fact that notorious Democrat lawfare hatchet man Norm Eisen co-founded the organization in 2003 and ran it for most of Trump’s presidency, during which time it generated nearly 200 lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Norm Eisen drafted ten articles of impeachment against Trump before Trump’s phone call with Zelensky even took place and went on to serve as special counsel in the first impeachment proceedings against Trump. Eisen worked with his colleague on a lawsuit claiming Trump violated the emoluments clause before he was even sworn in. Incidentally, his colleague Joseph Sellers represented Congressman Bennie Thompson in his January 6 lawsuit against Trump, which later became the basis for the second impeachment against Trump and the January 6 Committee report. Indeed, it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that Norm Eisen has been a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue, and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States—all in the name of democracy, of course. Years ago, we first brought Norm Eisen’s name to national attention in the context of his work on color revolutions overseas and the fact that he was deploying the same tools as a lawfare operative to undermine Trump that he would use in the State Department to undermine foreign leaders deemed to be adversaries of the United States.
