Very truthful fact-based article from THE HILL regarding Trump’s 14th
Amendment court case ongoing in CO and pending in four other states AZ; MI; MN;
and NH) with this headline:
“Trump
signaled to extremist groups on January 6, experts testify in Colorado’s 14th
Amendment case”
The attorneys attempting to paint former President Trump as an
insurrectionist in order to get him banned from the Colorado 2024 ballot have focused
their case on signals he sent to the extremist groups in DC who stormed the
Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Plaintiff Attorney Eric Olson, has relied on expert
testimony from an extremism expert during the second day of a trial that
centers on whether Trump should be disqualified from running for president in
the state, citing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
That expert witness is Chapman University (in CA) Professor Pete Simi, who studies political violence and extremism.
He argued that Trump
cultivated a far-right following for years even before running for president,
thus creating a relationship he took advantage of in his attempts to overturn
his 2020 election loss.
Simi said he was very
confident that Trump led the events of January 6, saying in part: “From my
years of studying how far-right extremists perceive communication, the
relationship that they developed with Donald Trump over multiple years, the
various signals … promoting or endorsing violence, things done over social
media … that aligned with many of the things that Trump said over the years. That
relationship that was established and built, I think, really underscores how
much influence he has for far-right extremists, and how much they perceive him
as essentially one on their side, or one of them.”
Simi then argued that
Trump’s far-right courting began in the 2012 election cycle with his promotion
of the “birtherism conspiracy theory” that centered on then President Obama,
and he said that led to:
1. “Giving
Trump clout in far-right spaces, which he reinforced when he launched his 2016
presidential campaign with inflammatory rhetoric about Mexican people, which
also aligned with far-right views.
2. Trump’s
reaction to the 2017 Charlottesville, VA white supremacist rally where he said
there were good people on both sides.
3. Then
during a debate with now-President Biden during the 2020 election cycle, Trump
told the right-wing group the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by when he was
asked to denounce such extremist groups.
4. Finally,
that led Trump’s January 6 speech on the Ellipse in Washington, DC right before
the storming of the Capitol in his speech when Trump told the crowd: You have
to fight like Hell or lose your country.
5. Despite
requests for them to be peaceful, should be considered as true calls to
violence. For extremists there was a clear understanding that fighting is the
real message, not peaceful.”
Under
cross-examination, Simi was asked if Trump had any intent to signal to the
extremist groups, and he responded: “I can say he expressed a consistent
pattern of messages over time that encouraged violence. He expressed messages
over time that endorsed violence. And that’s very, I think in clear terms, part
of this pattern.”
One question that the trial will likely center on is whether
Trump was aware of or intentionally signaled to the far-right extremists to be
violent or attempt to overturn the election violently.
Simi believes the
former president was aware and he said: “Seems pretty clear to me. I mean,
I’m not in Donald Trump’s mind, obviously, but in terms of observable patterns,
in terms of the repeated nature of the things we’ve been discussing, that’s all
pretty apparent.”
Plaintiff Attorney Olson then argued the Colorado case has four basic components: (1) Trump took an oath as an officer of the U.S., (2) the Capitol attack was an insurrection, (3) Trump engaged in that insurrection, and (4) Colorado’s Secretary of State can be ordered by the court to keep him off the state’s ballot because of it.
In the case’s opening arguments, the attorneys representing the Colorado Republican Party and Trump’s lawyers argued that the former president was simply exercising his free speech rights to warn about election results he did not believe were legitimate.
They also claimed that the specific 14th Amendment clause was untried in more than 150 years for this purpose and is being misread.
Attorney Mike Davis, who appeared with representatives of the
Trump campaign outside court before the trial began said: “This is a legal Hail
Mary by the Democrats. This case is going to fail.”
Noteworthy as stated above: Similar cases are being now being considered in Minnesota and Michigan, and two other states as well.
It is likely one of these cases will land before the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”
Three of the current sitting high-court justices were appointed by Trump during
his first term and that could pose an historical problem but we shall see.
My 2 Cents: There is no doubt in my mind that this case will end up before the USSC – how they rule is the $64,000 question.
In my view they should rule against Trump and reinforce the premise that “No one is above the law, not even a former president.”
But, with this staunch conservative court (6-3) nothing should be taken for granted – but we shall see.
Will this court stand with the Constitution as the 14th Amendment clearly states or will they split hairs and say “There is no precedent for this?”
Of course there is no precedent – since we’ve never had a person like Donald J. Trump before.
However, he cannot be exempt from the oath of office he swore as president to: “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” and then see him tear it up and throw it in our collective face.
The case against him is strong. He must not be allowed to seek, or serve as President ever again.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment