There Was A Full-Blown Trump Insurrection Trial in Colorado: Really?
Something is afoot. Almost everyone is unaware that there was a Trump insurrection “trial” in Colorado. Why is this fact not widely known? There is something inexplicably holding the media back from highlighting — or even covering — this blockbuster legal case or even discussing the particulars of the trial. This article describes the significance of what occurred in Colorado and the impending implications.
Why would a national legal correspondent for a major TV news outlet say that “there was no trial” when in fact there was? I teach a course in Evidence in law school and when I asked for a show of hands on this matter, not even one of my 51 law students was aware that there was a trial conducted for the sole purpose of determining — both factually and legally — whether Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.
Indeed, there was a full-blown evidentiary proceeding conducted under the Colorado rules of evidence and presided over by an experienced trial judge. The judge:
(1) heard live testimony by a significant number of witnesses,
(2) evaluated live expert witness testimony and analysis,
(3) received various types of exhibits:
· Video evidence (including of Trump admitting key facts)
· Tweets (Trump admitting key facts)
· Documents (including information from the Secret Service and the FBI)
· Factual findings reported by the seasoned former prosecutors and investigators on the January 6th congressional committee, and
(4) analyzed legal materials from conservative constitutional scholars and others regarding the meaning of the word “insurrection” in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (containing the insurrection disqualification provision).
After reviewing all the testimony and the applicable law, the trial judge found that Trump “engaged” — indeed incited — an insurrection against the Constitution (“a public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law”; which, in this case, was hindering the quintessential constitutional function of certifying the results of a U.S. presidential election).
Of course, Trump’s lawyers had a full opportunity to vigorously litigate the case and were present at the trial and fully involved. They cross examined the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, put expert and other witnesses on the stand and submitted legal arguments regarding interpretation of the Constitution’s insurrection provision. Trump refused to appear, but he had the opportunity to do so and could have testified, if he wished.
After a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying Trump based upon its agreement with the trial court’s interpretation of the insurrection provision in the Constitution, the trial evidence and the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the case on a rocket docket. It will be argued on February 8th and likely decided before Super Tuesday (March 4th). This is huge news, right? One of the most consequential cases of our generation, right? So, it’s all over the front pages of the papers and headlined on all the news sites and highlighted in social media? No. Why not?
You must dig deep to find any reference to it. And those in the media who do comment are almost always ignorant about the case. Without stating any reasons, they routinely assume that the Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado decision. Moreover, whenever there is a media reference that Trump will “obviously be the Republican nominee”, the comment is invariably not followed by a phrase such as “if he’s not disqualified in the upcoming Supreme Court’s ruling.
In my view, the case is a no-brainer: Trump is disqualified. The Supreme Court is limited to addressing the issues that have been put on its plate by the parties. Issue by issue Trump is just plainly wrong, and in some cases to an embarrassing extent. According to conservative legal scholars, a former conservative federal appeals court judge and other notable legal analysts, it’s not even a close case. Pretty much a slam dunk. Will the Supreme Court affirm Trump’s disqualification? I think so. This is the time for the conservative Justices to look in the mirror and decide to be on right side of history (well, probably not Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito).
A ruling against Trump in the Supreme Court, while limited to Colorado, can, in my view, be used to ban him from appearing on the ballot in all the States, thus ejecting him from the election.
This is a sleeper. In a few short weeks from now, a bombshell will explode.
