14th DQ disqual

11 23

SOMEWHAT NEGLECTED 2ND 12 23

see leo funding!

CITIZENS UNITED, CALABRISI FEDSOC AMICUS

no merri

see troll caicus mtg cawthorn

turley

---

AN 10 24

The U.S. Supreme Court's immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States in early July has inspired so much debate and discussion that it has overshadowed another controversial Trump-related ruling handed down by the justices five months earlier: Trump v. Anderson.

In Anderson, the High Court struck down a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that excluded Trump from the state's ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Under Section 3, one who has engaged in "insurrection" is ineligible to run for office — and the Colorado justices believed that the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building disqualified Trump.

But the Roberts Court disagreed, ruling that Trump couldn't be excluded from the Colorado ballot or any others. And two weeks before the 2024 election, Trump has a good chance of being elected president a second time. Polls are showing a very close, nail-biting race between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

In a biting article published by MSNBC on October 22, legal journalist Jordan Rubin argues that the High Court failed the U.S. miserably in Anderson — and that Trump shouldn't even be on the ballot.

"With former President Donald Trump on the precipice of possibly becoming president again," Rubin laments, "let's recall that he’s on the 2024 ballot thanks partly to the Supreme Court. I'm not talking about the ruling granting him broad criminal immunity, though the Roberts Court's handling of that appeal helped Trump push off a trial in the federal election interference case — possibly forever, if he wins the election and deploys his reacquired presidential power to crush it."

Rubin continues, "I'm talking about another Jan. 6-related appeal from the last Supreme Court term, one that more directly positioned the Republican to take office again: Trump v. Anderson. It was there that the justices reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to keep the former president from the ballot."

Rubin argues that the Roberts Court did the U.S. a huge disservice in Anderson, allowed Trump to stay on the Colorado ballot despite having "engaged in" insurrection on January 6, 2021.

"Look no further than the Trump-backed violence of Jan. 6," Rubin writes. "So, what about the 'plain consequences,' to use the chief justice's concerned phrase, of an oath-breaking insurrectionist potentially running the country again, this time knowing he'd have broad criminal immunity heading into a second term? That consequence apparently was not 'daunting' enough to move this court."

READ MORE:['I'm out of here': Michael Cohen plans to avoid MAGA reprisal by going abroad if Trump wins

*Jordan Rubin's full MSNBC column is available at this link.

ron fein fs4ppl

The U.S. Supreme Court today has made a mockery of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that–despite inciting and facilitating a violent insurrection that defeated federal law enforcement, conquered the seat of our national government, nearly assassinated the vice president and key congressional leaders, and blocked Congress from certifying his electoral defeat, thus disrupting the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation’s history–the disgraced ex-president Donald Trump can run for office again because this critical provision of the Constitution, designed to prevent exactly this situation, cannot be enforced.

Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “No person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States. . . who, having previously taken an oath, . . . as an officer of the United States. . ., 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.” Every court and state official that has addressed that issue — in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois — concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from the presidency.

The Supreme Court did not deny that Trump engaged in insurrection; indeed, during a nearly three hour oral argument on February 8, 2024, neither Trump’s lawyer nor any of the Justices seriously disputed that conclusion. Instead, the Court ruled that states’ power to appoint presidential electors–which the Court has previously described as “far-reaching” and “plenary”–does not allow them to apply this critical provision of the Constitution to presidential candidates. As of today, states can exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot because he did not submit the proper paperwork with the proper number of verified signatures, but notbecause he fomented a bloody insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.

This decision is disgraceful,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People, which pioneered the first litigation under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and co-led the successful Illinois challenge. “The Supreme Court couldn’t exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution’s built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don’t matter.

This dangerous ruling encourages Trump–and those who follow his example–to engage in more insurrections and disregard more broadly the Constitution. As one Senator explained in 1866 when advocating for Section 3, “the man who has once violated his oath will be more liable to violate his fealty to the Government in the future.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment learned this lesson in blood, and gave us Section 3 to prevent a repeat. With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court has utterly failed in its duty to uphold this constitutional mandate at this critical moment in history.

===

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, February 8, the justices — including Barack Obama appointee Elena Kagan — appeared to be extremely skeptical about the Colorado Supreme Court's reasons for banning Donald Trump from the state's presidential ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Many legal experts on MSNBC, including Neal Katyal (former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama) and former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance, have predicted that the High Court will strike down the Colorado decision and keep Trump on the state's ballot.

Trump's loyalists have been attacking the push to remove him from state ballots as nothing more than Democratic partisanship. But it fact, one of the most vocal proponents of the 14th Amendment argument is conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge who believes that Trump committed "insurrection" after the 2020 election and is therefore ineligible to run for president in 2024.

Meanwhile, other right-wing legal figures have been fighting to keep Trump on the ballot in Colorado and other states, including — according to Guardian reporter Rachel Leingang — Federalist Society Co-Chairman Leonard Leo.

"Through this extensive network," Leingang explains in an article published by The Guardian on February 9, "he is tied to several of the filers of amicus briefs in the 14th Amendment case that could prevent Trump from running for reelection. In those briefs, a variety of conservative groups argue against Trump's removal, aligning with Trump's arguments that he should remain on the ballot."

The reporter adds, "The consequential case has brought in amicus briefs on both sides from outside groups, historians, law professors and elected officials, who've parsed through legal language and the implications of removing a presidential candidate from the running."

Leonard's ties to these amicus briefs, according to Leingang, have been documented by the nonprofit Accountable.US.

"In this instance," Leingang reports, "Accountable.US found ties between Leo and the following groups or their lawyers that filed amicus briefs in the 14th Amendment case: Citizens United, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Claremont Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Jones Day, Wyoming's secretary of state Chuck Gray, and America's Future. Citizens United, a conservative group whose name is synonymous with the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited political spending by outside groups and corporations, filed a brief alongside Steven Calabresi, Leo's fellow co-chair of the Federalist Society."

Leingang adds, "Other lawyers tied to the Society are signed on to the group's brief as well."

The Federalist Society co-chair's connection to amicus briefs submitted in other "high-profile" U.S. Supreme cases was described by journalist Heidi Przybyla in an article published by Politico on December 3, 2023.

*Read The Guardian's full report at this link.

the man behind the conservative effort to move the judiciary to the right has ties to many of the groups and people arguing that Donald Trump should stay on the ballot in a case heard before the US supreme court this week.

Leonard Leo’s advocacy and financial network played a major role in Trump’s judicial nominations and confirmation hearings as part of his years-long push to make the courts more friendly to conservatives and their causes. Justice Clarence Thomas once joked that Leo was the “No 3 most powerful person in the world”.

US ethics groups hail Senate subpoenas for Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/nov/30/supreme-court-ethics-scandal-leonard-leo-harlan-crow)}:

Leo is the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that counts five of the current nine justices as current or former members. He also heads a well-funded financial network that works to advance rightwing causes, having received a massive $1.6bn donation to boost his work. His maneuvers have been part of the recent scandals at the supreme court, including a payment he directed to be paid to Thomas’s wife, Ginni, the Washington Post reported in 2023.

Through this extensive network, he is tied to several of the filers of amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case that could prevent Trump from running for re-election. In those briefs, a variety of conservative groups argue against Trump’s removal, aligning with Trump’s arguments that he should remain on the ballot.

The consequential case has brought in amicus briefs on both sides from outside groups, historians, law professors and elected officials, who’ve parsed through legal language and the implications of removing a presidential candidate from the running.

According to research by Accountable.US, a non-profit that focuses on calling attention to special interests in US politics, Leo has ties – including professional associations, funding through his own groups or those he’s exchanged money with, and allies in the Federalist Society – to a handful of groups that filed amicus briefs against Trump’s removal.

The ties are part of a pattern, documented by Politico, of Leo himself and his network being connected to amicus briefs in high-profile supreme court cases in recent years. The Politico review also found “multiple instances of language used in the amicus briefs appearing in the court’s opinions”.

In this instance, Accountable.US found ties between Leo and the following groups or their lawyers that filed amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case: Citizens United, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Claremont Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Jones Day, Wyoming’s secretary of state Chuck Gray and America’s Future.

Democrats plan to subpoena Leonard Leo over perks to supreme court justices

:{Read more

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oct/31/leonard-leo-subpoena-harlan-crow-supreme-court)}:

Citizens United, a conservative group whose name is synonymous with the 2010 supreme court ruling that allows unlimited political spending by outside groups and corporations, filed a brief alongside Steven Calabresi, Leo’s fellow co-chair of the Federalist Society. Other lawyers tied to the society are signed on to the group’s brief as well.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s brief is co-filed with a man who has been featured in more than 100 Federalist Society events, and the group has received funding from groups tied to Leo. The Claremont Institute has also received funds from groups tied to Leo’s funding network, and the brief’s author wrote a book that includes a quote from Leo on the back cover and featured in society events.

Leo has complimented the chairman of the Landmark Legal Foundation as a “great patriot” and ”. The Judicial Watch president is also president of the Council for National Policy, which Leo has reportedly been involved with. Jones Day, a conservative law firm whose attorneys authored an amicus brief for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has given money to the Federalist Society, and the firm is where Leo, Trump and others met to come up with a list of supreme court candidates.

The lawyers who filed Wyoming secretary of state Gray’s brief include a Federalist Society contributor who’s received a fellowship from the group. America’s Future has gotten funding from a group that’s exchanged millions with Leo’s financial network.

“It’s no surprise that Leonard Leo is backing efforts to support Trump at the supreme court,” said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone. “Leo helped Trump draw up his supreme court nominee shortlist – many of whom are justices on the bench set to hear this critical case – and now, Leo’s deploying his rightwing network in support of Trump as he faces consequences for his violent insurrection. It couldn’t be clearer where Leo stands.”

---

ron fein 2 24 amicus

Former state supreme court justices urge U.S. Supreme Court to affirm Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling finding Trump disqualified under Fourteenth Amendment - Free Speech For People

---

an 2 24

Greene (R-GA) came under attack after making remarks in support of Donald Trump, insisting that both she and the ex-president did not engage in insurrection. The far-right Georgia Republican’s comments came during a press conference (https://www.c-span.org/video/?533397-1/rep-matt-gaetz-introduces-resolution-fmr-pres-trump-engage-insurrection) promoting a House resolution from U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) that claims the ex-president did not engage in insurrection.

A Colorado judge in November ruled that Donald Trump did engage in insurrection (https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-judges-allows-trump-primary-ballot-delays-decision-general-election-2023-11-18/), despite what the Congresswoman and her fellow Republican said on Tuesday.

“Democrats and liars in the media accuse President Trump of being an insurrectionist when in fact he is not,” Greene declared Tuesday.

“Not one single person has been charged with insurrection. Not one single person has been convicted with insurrection, not one in every single court of our land. No one’s been charged and convicted with insurrection,” Greene, speaking angrily and sharply, told reporters. She ignored that the U.S. Dept. of Justice has obtained at least four guilty pleas of seditious conspiracy (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/36-months-jan-6-attack-capitol-0#::text=Pleas%3A,have%20pleaded%20guilty%20to%20misdemeanors.) for felonious actions surrounding the January 6, 2021 insurrection, which can carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/what-is-seditious-conspiracy-insurrection-treason.html) – more harsh than the rarely-used charge of insurrection.

“Yet Democrats and dishonest people in the media every single day accuse President Trump of waging an insurrection and accused many of us of waging an insurrection and you’re doing nothing but lying and selling the lies of the Democrats all for campaigns and elections. Shame on every single person that has done that. Shame on you. You need to tell the truth. You have the freedom of press, one of the greatest rights in this entire world. And anyone that puts the word ‘insurrectionists,’ calls President Trump an insurrectionist, and calls any of us an insurrectionists is a liar and you do not deserve the power that you possess. Shame on you. Shame on you,” Greene, nearly shouting, declared falsely.[= twt?]

READ MORE: Tuberville: Democrats Want Women to Be ‘Extinct’ (https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2024/02/tuberville-democrats-want-women-to-be-extinct/)

She then appeared to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the definition of the word “insurrection,” which has been defined as (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insurrection), “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence,” or (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection), “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”

“Let me give you guys a little history lesson,” Greene continued. “Okay. When President Trump was inaugurated Antifa and leftist rioters nearly burned down Washington, D.C. Did you call it an insurrection? No. BLM raised millions of dollars on the ACT Blue Democrat fundraising website and then proceeded to cause $2 billion in damages across American cities and communities all in 2020, every day, not one day for three hours but every damn day. Did you call it an insurrection? They attacked police officers, federal courthouses, tore down statues, burned 93 police vehicles. Did you in the media call it an insurrection? No, you did not. You called it mostly peaceful, and you lied to the American people and the American people don’t trust you anymore because of that.”

---

an 2 24

During Wednesday's episode of MSNBC's The ReidOut, a former Republican governor laid out his reasons for filing a brief — along with two other ex-GOP governors — in support of disqualifying Donald Trump from office under the 14th Amendment.

"Three former Republican elected officials stand out in a party that is otherwise completely submissive to Trump — joining the ranks of those arguing to the Supreme Court that he is disqualified to appear on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection," host Joy Reid said. "They are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and former Montana Governor Marc Racicot."

She continued, "The filing notes that the three governors have been members of the Republican party for decades. Their objectives in filing this brief are not partisan but purely patriotic, motivated by their commitment to public service. The governors argue, 'Should Mr. Trump be permitted to stand again for election to the presidency, despite his past actions, neither section 3 of the 14th amendment ,nor the oaths that undergird the bedrock premise that public officials serve to advance the welfare of the people and our common national project will ever be the same. They will have been rendered meaningless in their legal force and stripped of their moral authority and power. They will, in effect, have been written out of our Constitution."

Reid then began her phone interview with ex-Governor Racicot. "Tell me why you felt compelled to weigh in on this Supreme Court involving Donald Trump," she said.

Racicot replied, "Well, because it's a serious violation of the Constitution to ignore it. And the fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to run for office. We certainly have a right to vote, if we qualify and haven't disabled ourselves from being able to vote. But we don't have a right to run. In order to run, the person that is the candidate has to prove that, in fact, they can meet the qualifications. So you don't get access to the ballot unless you meet the qualifications. The qualifications have been there from the beginning of the Constitution 235 years ago. You have to be 35 years of age. You have to be native born, and have to have been resident of the country for the past 14 years."

The former governor emphasized, "Then there's a fourth requirement that you have to meet in order to be eligible. And that is, you cannot have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and thereafter involve, engage, incite, or in any other way, be involved with an insurrection against the United States of America, and against the Constitution. So, simply, as you said in your introduction, it cannot be ignored. It can't be waived. It's not an option. This is something that is mandatory. And the burden is on Mr. Trump to prove that, in fact, he meets the qualifications. And there is evidence from two courts — a district court in Colorado, and the United States Supreme Court, plus the Secretary of State in the state of Maine that have all held after a due process hearing that, in fact, Mr. Trump was involved in an insurrection. And as a consequence, he is therefore ineligible to run for president. So, we want to see faith be paid to the Constitution, that's the bottom line.

Watch the video below or at this link.

---

1 24

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is currently weighing whether to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state's Republican primary ballot. One House Republican is attempting to sway that decision with legislation of his own.

According to Politico, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) is drumming up support for a resolution that declares the former president did not "engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." That's language lifted directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — also known as the "insurrection clause" — which was used to disqualify Trump in both Colorado and Maine.

The decisions from both Colorado's high court and Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to remove Trump from their respective ballot stems from his role in the January 6 siege of the US Capitol, which both entities referred to as an "insurrection." Those disqualifications cited Trump taking an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States," which they accuse him of violating by egging on his supporters on January 6.

Because SCOTUS issued a writ of certiorari agreeing to consider the Colorado ruling, a decision could be handed down anytime before June, when SCOTUS' current term ends. And even though the Court has a 6-3 conservative majority — which includes three justices appointed by Trump himself — a ruling in favor of Trump isn't guaranteed.

As University of Baltimore School of Law professor Kimberly Wehle wrote last month, the Colorado ruling is rooted in the same type of "judicial conservatism" that Republican-appointed jurists claimed in their confirmation hearings to follow while interpreting the Constitution. Trump-appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are all proponents of "originalism" and "textualism," in which adherents interpret the Constitution with a plain meaning, rather than try to apply it in a more modern way.

"If the purportedly conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court are intellectually honest about their jurisprudential approach to the law, this case should not be hard," Wehle wrote in an essay for the Atlantic.

While Gaetz's anti-disqualification measure may pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it's unlikely to go further than that. The insurrection clause stipulates that any disqualification of a candidate can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is virtually impossible given Republicans' razor-thin House majority and the Democratic-controlled US Senate.

---

Trump disqualification Colorado ruling backed by Civil War historians in new filing: report - Alternet.org

IN a Sunday, January 21 op-ed, MSNBC Daily writer and editor Hayes Brown points to "an amicus (or friend of the court) brief filed on behalf of nearly 200 Republican members of Congress," which urges the US Supreme Court to determine whether Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado. Brown emphasizes "that there's a deeply self-serving element to their arguments."

He adds, "Under the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling," several GOP lawmakers "could also credibly be described as having 'engaged in insurrection' — and thus theoretically be disqualified from holding office," just as Donald Trump could.

Brown writes, "Dozens of other signatories voted against certifying Biden’s win even after the rioters had stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The goal of their brief isn’t just to keep their party’s standard-bearer on the ballot, but it’s also to absolve themselves of their own sins and to inoculate themselves from calls that they, too, face accountability for supporting Trump’s attempt to steal the election."

The MSNBC Daily writer notes:

*Section 3 states, in part, that if somebody has 'previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States' but then has 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,' that person can’t be allowed to 'be a Senator or Representative in Congress.'Section 3 also gives Congress the power to, 'by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'

*The self-interested lawmakers give up the game with this line from the brief: 'Although not directly relevant to President Trump, the Colorado Supreme Court would give itself the power to judge the qualifications of those who would be elected to the House or Senate.' That would be especially troubling for Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona. The three of them were knee-deep in plotting to overturn the election, and, in a more just world, they would have faced expulsion for violating Section 3. It’s their inclusion as signatories on the amicus brief that makes this filing particularly odious.

*Read Brown's full op-ed here.

---

an 1 24

gop # get worse with time?!

46 GOP senators sign SCOTUS brief downplaying Trump’s role in January 6 insurrection

President Donald J. Trump, joined by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO., speaks with reporters prior to attending a Senate Republican lunch Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Carl Gibson

January 18, 2024

All but three members of the Senate Republican Caucus have signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) urging the Court to strike down the Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the state's GOP primary ballot.

The brief — which was also signed by 130 House Republicans — argued that Trump's disqualification "tramples the prerogatives of members of Congress," which they say include "the enforcement and (if necessary) removal of Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment]’s 'disability' on holding office."

"Congress—not any state court—plays a vital role in regard to [the insurrection clause]," the brief read. "It is Congress that must pass implementing legislation authorizing enforcement of Section 3."

"[T]his Court should conclude that Section 3 determinations fall within the 'political question' doctrine because they are so clearly committed by constitutional text to another political branch, i.e., Congress," the amicus brief continued. "Under current law, Congress has implemented Section 3 only in the narrow context of requiring a criminal conviction for 'rebellion or insurrection,' and provided that those found guilty 'shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.'"

While the question of whether a presidential candidate can only be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS, the actual text of the insurrection clause doesn't explicitly say enforcement only comes after Congress votes. Rather, the clause — which prevents anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US or who has "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any "civilian or military" office — only states that disqualification can be reversed by a two-thirds vote from both the House and Senate. Even if all signees of the brief voted to exempt Trump from the insurrection clause, it would still fall well short of the two-thirds threshold laid out in the US Constitution.

Notably, the brief also minimizes the former president's role in the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, with the brief falsely asserting that Trump "quickly" asked for peace and encouraged "disbandment" of the riot even though he watched events unfold over the course of several hours before telling his supporters to go home. The brief even quoted George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 to describe the actions of "enterprising state officials" trying to disqualify Trump as an example of the statement "peace means war."

The only GOP senators to not co-sign the brief were Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski. Notably, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) co-signed the brief despite condemning Trump's actions on January 6.

---

mma 1 24 mg

After decisions in two states ruled that Donald Trump was disqualified from the presidential ballot because he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6, 2021, right-wing influencers called for Republican officials to retaliate in kind by dropping President Joe Biden from the ballot. It took only days for them to find someone willing to play the part: Jay Ashcroft, Missouri’s secretary of state and a candidate for governor.

Ashcroft said last week that he would enforce “the new legal standard” against Biden in his state if the Supreme Court sustains Trump’s removal in Colorado. He probably won’t be the last to make such a pitch given the incentives GOP officeholders have to follow the lead of the party’s media propagandists.

Colorado’s Supreme Court generated a legal firestorm when it ruled in December that Trump is ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment’s ban on officials who “engaged in insurrection,” for his “overt, voluntary, and direct participation” in the storming of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows subsequently removed Trump from the primary ballot on similar grounds. Trump has appealed both decisions, and the Supreme Court said Friday it would review the Colorado ruling.

Prominent conservative legal scholars have argued in favor of Trump’s removal on 14th Amendment grounds. As conservative former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote with liberal Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe, “any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that” would agree that January 6 was “an insurrection for which Trump bore responsibility.”

But Trumpist propagandists have spent the last three years crafting a bogus alternate narrative of January 6 in which the rioters were victims of a government conspiracy and the then-president who incited them based on lies did nothing wrong. And so they’ve responded to the rulings in Colorado and Maine by urging Republican officials to bump Biden from the ballot in retaliation.

“Due process is not taken into account any more in America in 2023 and certainly going into 2024, so Republicans should say Joe Biden is off the ballot in all the Republican-controlled-AG states because of his links, clearly, to bribery schemes,” Donald Trump Jr. offered on his Triggered podcast on December 28, 2023. “There's far more evidence of that than an actual insurrection.”

“I want to see a secretary of state in the next couple of days just put out the press release,” Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk said Wednesday. “Joe Biden's not going to be on the primary ballot. He's not going to be on the general election ballot.”

Like Trump Jr., Kirk made clear that any explanation for why a secretary of state would do such a thing would be a pretext, saying, “Shot across the bow. Power dynamics. Fight power with power.”

“We need a red state secretary of state to kick Biden off the ballot now,” Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles added Friday morning. “And they can come up with some explanation. It will probably be a more credible explanation than the one that the Democrats have come up with for kicking Donald Trump off the ballot.”

Knowles went on to say that a GOP secretary of state could cite a 2020 tweet by Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign asking supporters to donate to a Minnesota bail fund to “help post bail for those protesting on the ground” there following the murder of George Floyd by a police officer.

“Certainly we can say Kamala Harris led an insurrection. She personally fundraised for rioters and criminals who were insurrecting against cities around the country during the George Floyd riots,” he explained. “So OK. Make it Kamala Harris, and then Kamala can't appear on the ticket, and you don't even need to go after Joe Biden.”

The incentive structure on the right is such that once major players like Kirk and Knowles start creating a demand for action, Republican officials will supply it. Ashcroft, who is seeking a promotion to governor but faces a competitive GOP primary against candidates including the state’s lieutenant governor, answered the call later on Friday.

“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” the Missouri secretary of state wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”

He subsequently used the story to direct people to his campaign website, saying on X, “Its time to stand and be counted. The future depends on it.”

It can be difficult to tell whether GOP officials are acting in response to right-wing media figures or if they’re converging on the same idea independently because they’re all swimming in the same milieu of Republican base voters. But notably, when Ashcroft discussed the potential rationale he would use to remove Biden from the ballot in an interview with NBC News, it sounded an awful lot like Knowles’ idea from earlier in the day:

Asked how he would disqualify Biden from the ballot for insurrection, Ashcroft said that he's “let an invasion unstopped into our country from the border.” Vice President Kamala Harris, he added, “supported people that were rebelling against the U.S. government during the riots in 2020,” referring to racial justice protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

“If this is the standard, does that suddenly mean she's not allowed to run? None of us can say, because there is no standard,” he said.

---

ymail judd 1 24

republican officials in several states are threatening to remove President Biden's name from the presidential ballot. The officials claim that removing Biden's name could be justified in response to Biden's immigration policies. The threat is rooted in a white nationalist conspiracy theory, the "great replacement," which posits Biden is intentionally allowing migrants to cross the border as part of a scheme to cement political control of the country.

The warning by Republicans that they are prepared to kick Biden off the ballot comes in response to decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify Trump. These decisions, which are under appeal, are based on the text of the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who "having previously taken an oath… engaged in insurrection" is disqualified from holding "any office, civil or military, under the United States."

On X, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R), who is currently a candidate for governor, said that if the decisions in Colorado and Maine are upheld, he would apply the "new legal standard" to Biden.

Ashcroft said that the removal of Biden from the ballot could be justified because Biden purposely allowed an "invasion" of immigrants to cross the southern border.

In a December interview on Fox News, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) said Texas could "take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president." Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) said he was considering removing Biden because "he's let in 8 million people illegally, a massive invasion, including from enemies of our country."

All of these officials have their facts wrong. Customs and Border Protectionl has reported 8 million encounters with migrants since Biden took office. But, until August 2024, millions of those migrants were immediately expelled based on Title 42, a Trump-era policy that denied the legal right of migrants to seek asylum due to the public health emergency created by the COVID pandemic. Many of these encounters were the same migrants attempting to cross the border multiple times. Since Title 42 provided for immediate expulsion without the creation of an immigration record, it encouraged repeated attempts.

Since then many more migrants have been expelled under a new Biden policy, which requires migrants to make an appointment using a smartphone app before presenting themselves at the border. Most undocumented migrants who are currently inside the United States are here legally. The Refugee Act of 1980 gives migrants inside the United States the right to claim asylum based on "a well-founded fear of persecution." During Biden's presidency, a much smaller number of migrants have been able to cross without detection, which was the case under Trump and every president.

But even if the Republican claims about Biden's immigration record were true, how would that constitute Biden engaging in "insurrection"? That claim appears to be premised on the idea that Biden intentionally allowed millions of migrants to enter the country as part of a sinister plot to enhance the political power of Democrats. The racist conspiracy theory that Democrats are trying to "replace" white voters with non-white immigrants has been embraced by white supremacists.

What the Constitution says

The Constitution includes several requirements for candidates for president. To run for president, a candidate must be at least 35 years old, a natural-born citizen, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. (Trump spent years asserting that President Obama was not a legitimate president, falsely claiming that Obama was born in Africa.)

In 1868, another requirement was added with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 states that if you win federal office, take an oath, and then "engage in insurrection" you are ineligible to hold "any office… under the United States."

In Colorado, the state Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible because he engaged in an insurrection that culminated on January 6, 2021. The Constitution does not define the term "insurrection," but the court ruled that Trump's conduct met both the dictionary definition and how the drafters of the 14th Amendment understood the term:

President Trump continued to fan the flames of his supporters’ ire, which he had ignited, with ongoing false assertions of election fraud, propelling the “Stop the Steal” movement and cross-country rallies leading up to January 6. Specifically, between Election Day 2020 and January 6, Stop the Steal organizers held dozens of rallies around the country, proliferating President Trump’s election disinformation and recruiting attendees, including members of violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, QAnon conspiracy theorists, and white nationalists, to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6.

…With full knowledge of these sometimes-violent events, President Trump sent the following tweet on December 19, 2020, urging his supporters to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6: “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6. Be there, will be wild!”

…At this point, the record established that President Trump’s “plan” was that when Congress met to certify the election results on January 6, Vice President Pence could reject the true electors who voted for President Biden and certify a slate of fake electors supporting President Trump or he could return the slates to the states for further proceedings.

Shenna Bellows, Maine's Secretary of State, ruled that Trump was disqualified from the Maine ballot based on similar evidence. Both rulings have been stayed pending Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court. As a result, Trump will appear on the primary ballot in both states.

The Supreme Court could find in Trump's favor, ruling that Trump did not engage in an insurrection. (Something that is contradicted by voluminous evidence.) Or the Supreme Court could say that the 14th Amendment would only apply if Trump were convicted in court of engaging in an insurrection. (Something that does not appear in the text.) Or the Supreme Court could find a technical way to let Trump off the hook. One of these outcomes appears likely, particularly with the current composition of the court.

But the process of taking the Constitution seriously is not, as Republicans like Ashcroft claim, "disgraceful" and does not "undermine[] our republic."

Media advances the Republican narrative

The Republican narrative that applying the 14th Amendment to Trump is a threat to the democratic process is being advanced by prominent media outlets. On December 22, for example, the New York Times published a piece that claimed that the "Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald J. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president again pits one fundamental value against another: giving voters in a democracy the right to pick their leaders versus ensuring that no one is above the law."

The Washington Post editorial board wrote that excluding Trump from the ballot would "is dangerous." And claim courts "should be reluctant to prevent the country’s citizens from choosing an elected official to lead them."

But voters in the United States have never had "the right to pick their leaders" without limitation. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) proved to be a popular politician and was elected Governor of California twice. But voters could not select him as president because he was born outside of the United States. Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-FL) is a well-liked figure, but voters cannot select him as president anytime in the next decade because he is just 26 years old.

If there was an overwhelming desire from voters to elect prior officeholders who engaged in an insurrection to the presidency, there is a mechanism to do that. They could elect representatives who would amend the Constitution to allow it. Until that happens, enforcing the qualifications to run for office under the Constitution is not an attack on democracy. It is a central part of the democratic process.

---

1 24 mma

In the years since the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which was spurred by then-President Donald Trump’s attempt to retain power, right-wing media figures have repeatedly whitewashed the violent attack, pushed misinformation and conspiracy theories about it, and defended its participants.

As a result, the initial consensus of the horrors of the day has disappeared, with Republicans reportedly “now less likely to believe that Jan. 6 participants were ‘mostly violent,’ less likely to believe Trump bears responsibility for the attack, and … slightly less likely to view Joe Biden’s election as legitimate.”

The following right-wing media personalities have been critical in the push to downplay January 6, and they have continued their apologia for the violent crowd that sought to overturn an election.

no lnx

no grf

Darren Beattie

Beattie was a speechwriter and policy aide for then-President Trump who was fired in 2018 for attending a white nationalist conference two years before. In 2020, he founded right-wing site Revolver News, with Trump himself praising the outlet’s commentary. Beattie has repeatedly pushed the baseless conspiracy theory that the FBI, in connection with an undercover agent named Ray Epps, helped to incite the January 6 riot.

2021: Beattie spread a conspiracy theory that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s death was not a result of injuries sustained in the attack, calling his claims “the most important story Revolver has ever run.” Fox’s Tucker Carlson also highlighted the story, calling it an “exhaustive and fascinating new analysis.” [Media Matters, 2/12/21]

2022: Beattie and his news outlet, Revolver News, were crucial in pushing the false claim that Capitol rioter Ray Epps was an undercover FBI agent who duped the crowd into entering the Capitol building. Epps has sued Fox News, and his suit describes Beattie as “the principal person driving the false story that Epps was a federal agent planted as a provocateur to trigger the Capitol violence on January 6th.” [Media Matters, 1/19/22; The New York Times, 7/12/23]

2023-present: Beattie has continued to falsely allege that Epps was a federal agent, claiming he was treated leniently for that reason. In posts on X from September, Beattie claimed that “charging Ray Epps now for ‘disorderly conduct’ is not going to make the Feds' credibility problem go away.” Beattie additionally called the government’s case against Epps “a phony charge” that “will only make things worse for the Fed narrative.” He also suggested that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was a false flag and said that the Justice Department and FBI should “at least do us the courtesy of a high effort cover up like you did with OKC” for January 6. [Media Matters, 9/21/23; Twitter/X, 9/19/23, 9/19/23, 9/19/23, 9/19/23]

DB Tweet Collage

Julie Kelly

Kelly is a prolific conspiracy theorist who has written for a number of conservative outlets, mainly American Greatness, National Review, and The Federalist. Then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) gave Kelly and former Trump adviser John Solomon special access to security camera footage from the Capitol attack, as she claimed that conservatives were being unjustly persecuted.

2021: Kelly called January 6 Metropolitan Police Department officer Michael Fanone a “crisis actor.” [Media Matters, 7/27/21]

2022: On One America News, Kelly pushed a conspiracy theory that the FBI fabricated pipe bombs that were discovered at the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. the night before the January 6 riot. Kelly also published a book where she claimed that the Biden administration is weaponizing January 6 to persecute conservatives and criminalize political protest. [One America News, Tipping Point with Kara McKinney, 2/16/22; Google Books, accessed 1/5/23, Post Hill Press, accessed 1/5/24]

2023-present: Kelly repeatedly spread the Epps conspiracy theory, and when Epps was charged, she questioned why he wasn’t charged with more crimes, posting, “No obstruction felony? No civil disorder charge? Not even a trespassing on restricted grounds misdemeanor?” Kelly also claimed that the Biden’s Justice Department has “successfully criminalized political speech and activity.” In May, then-Speaker McCarthy reportedly gave Kelly special access to security camera footage from the Capitol attack. [Media Matters, 9/21/23, 5/31/23; The Washington Post, 6/6/23; Premiere Networks, The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, 3/23/23]

Julie Kelly claims that January 6 prosecutions are a silencing free speech and destroying lives

MARCH 23, 2023

Julie Kelly claims that January 6 prosecutions are a silencing free speech and destroying lives

:{Audio

CitationFrom the March 23, 2023, edition of Premiere Networks' The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Tucker Carlson

As a Fox prime-time host, Carlson relentlessly downplayed the January 6 insurrection and promoted the conspiracy theory that Ray Epps, whom he posited was a federal agent or FBI informant, incited the riot. Carlson also repeatedly hosted Beattie and Kelly to push misinformation about the attack.

2021: Carlson put out a revisionist January 6-focused series that suggested the attack was a “false flag.” In an interview with Kelly, Carlson said the left used officer Brian Sicknick’s death “as a political weapon” and that his state funeral was “fake.” “Completely fabricated,” agreed Kelly. Carlson also hosted Beattie and cited an article in which he suggested the January 6 attack may have been orchestrated by FBI operatives. [Media Matters, 11/2/21, 11/4/21, 6/16/21, 6/17/21; Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 11/1/21]

2022: Carlson defended the rioters as “passionately patriotic Americans” “who genuinely love America” and on the one-year anniversary of January 6 he downplayed the violence as “just barely” a riot. As a guest on Carlson’s show, Beattie also called January 6 “a clear hoax” planned and carried out by “the feds.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 6/8/22, 1/6/22, 6/9/22]

Early 2023: Carlson continued to downplay the severity of the January 6 riot, calling the rioters “nonviolent … protesters” and “patriotic Americans.” He also said January 6 was “probably second only to the 2020 election as the biggest scam in my lifetime.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 3/21/23, 3/14/23]

April 2023-present: After Carlson was fired in April from Fox, he appeared on a Spaces live chat on X (formerly Twitter) and continued to downplay the insurrection. [Twitter/X, 12/12/23]

:{Video

CitationFrom a December 12, 2023, X Space

Steve Bannon

Since he left the Trump administration in 2017, Steve Bannon has hosted War Room — a podcast for Real America’s Voice — where he has frequently defended those involved in the insurrection. Bannon has also hosted both Beattie and Kelly to also push conspiracy theories about January 6.

2021: Leading up to the January 6 insurrection, Bannon bragged on his podcast about his role in working to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. [Media Matters, 10/29/21]

2022: Bannon defended the Proud Boys ahead of one of Congress’ January 6 hearings, referring to the organization, whose leaders have since been convicted for their role in the January 6 attack, as a “rag tag beer drinking group.” Bannon also repeatedly made false claims that U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger’s death was an intentional homicide, comparing it to older right-wing conspiracy theories around the suicide of Clinton administration official Vince Foster. [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 6/9/22; CNN, 9/1/23; Media Matters, 6/29/22]

2023-present: Bannon is still hosting his podcast, War Room, where he has continued to downplay the insurrection, including dismissing Trump's role by stating that Trump was “doing his duty” to “make sure that the 2020 election had been fairly decided” and continuing to insist that the 2020 election was stolen. [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 8/2/23]

:{Video

CitationFrom the August 2, 2023, edition of Real America's Voice's War Room

Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, who co-founded the right-wing organization Turning Point USA, has repeatedly downplayed the insurrection and accused Ray Epps of being a federal agent.

2021: In the immediate aftermath of January 6, Kirk downplayed the attack, saying that “just because you do something that is regrettable does not mean that you are planning an armed insurrection against the United States government." [Newsweek, 1/12/21]

2022: Kirk pushed the Epps conspiracy theory, posting to X that Epps “texted his nephew ‘I orchestrated it’” and claiming that he is the “only man caught on camera actively calling for people to enter the Capitol and riot.” In another post, Kirk said, “If the FBI knows who Ray Epps is, why haven't they arrested him yet?” [Twitter/X, 1/11/22, 12/30/22]

2023-present: Kirk continues to run Turning Point USA and has repeatedly promoted far-right talking points, including false claims about January 6. On his eponymous show, Kirk has primed his audience to prepare for “another January 6” over Trump’s various indictments and called on a future administration to “get some pardons done” for the January 6 insurrectionists. [Media Matters, 9/22/23, 11/21/23; Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 1/3/24, 12/7/23, 7/28/23, 1/6/23; Twitter/X, 9/19/23]

CHarlie Kirk Epps tweet 1

The Gateway Pundit

The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing website that frequently pushes conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and Editor-in-Chief Jim Hoft have repeatedly claimed that the January 6 insurrection was a false flag operation organized by federal law enforcement.

2021: The Gateway Pundit was reportedly a favorite source for Donald Trump in the lead-up to January 6. According to The Washington Post, “In the weeks before he left office in 2021, Trump brandished printouts of Gateway Pundit articles questioning the results of the election.” In May 2021, a few months after the insurrection, Hoft published an article claiming that someone inside the Capitol unlocked the doors for the rioters, citing an anonymous member of the Oath Keepers — a group with several members who have since been convicted for their roles on January 6. [The Washington Post, 1/3/24; The Gateway Pundit, 5/24/21; Politico, 1/23/23]

2022: Hoft doubled down on the claim that “someone inside the security booth at the US Capitol opened the doors” in a Gateway Pundit article titled “WE WERE RIGHT. ” In another article, Hoft claimed that instead of investigating the Oath Keepers’ involvement in January 6, “the FBI would have better luck if they looked at their trained operatives instead who were leading the charge on the Capitol building.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/22; The Gateway Pundit, 1/29/22, 8/24/22]

2023-present: Hoft and The Gateway Pundit remain a source of conspiracy theories about January 6. Hoft has penned several stories alleging that Ray Epps’ criminal charges and sentencing are proof that he was a federal agent and said President Joe Biden “will use the J6 anniversary to accuse Trump supporters of being white supremacists.” [The Gateway Pundit, 1/2/24, 9/19/23, 1/3/24]

Laura Ingraham

Fox News host Laura Ingraham has used her prime-time platform to repeatedly claim that January 6 was a “false flag operation” orchestrated by “antifa” or federal agents.

2021: Ingraham suggested “antifa sympathizers” were behind the January 6 attack, citing a Washington Times article that was later debunked. [The New York Times, 3/1/21]

2022: Ingraham cited Darren Beattie’s Revolver News on her show on Fox to argue that “Epps may have led the breach team that first entered the Capitol on January 6.” [Media Matters, 1/19/22]

2023-present: Ingraham has used her prime-time slot on Fox News to continuously defend Trump and attack those who are involved in the legal cases against him over his alleged role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. She has also whitewashed the Capitol insurrectionists as “old ladies walking through the halls of Congress taking selfies.” [Media Matters, 11/01/23; Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 10/10/23, 8/7/23, 3/29/23]

:{Video

CitationFrom the March 29, 2023, edition of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle

Infowars

Prolific conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars co-host Owen Shroyer were part of the crowd on January 6. Shroyer has since celebrated the insurrection while Jones has claimed that any violence that occurred was caused by antifa or federal agents.

2021: Jones responded to the FBI’s investigation into his involvement in the insurrection by claiming that “we know who did it: antifa with some paramilitary groups all together, which are going to turn out to be feds with idiots they provocateured to be part of it, the Q people,” calling it “the modern Reichstag 2.0.” Shroyer stated that “we should have been proud of what happened on January 6.” [Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 1/14/21, 5/17/21]

2022: Jones claimed that when investigated by the January 6 committee, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment “almost 100 times.” [Texas Tribune, 4/28/22]

2023-present: Jones celebrated Tucker Carlson’s revisionist history of the insurrection, claiming the footage Carlson aired showed that “January 6 was an inside job.” In the days before Shroyer was sentenced to two months in prison for leading a portion of the crowd on January 6, Jones claimed that the government was “asking for prison time for a man that did nothing and was there with me trying to stop people going to the Capitol because he still says he thinks the election was stolen.” [Media Matters, 2/28/23; Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 9/6/23; PBS, PBS NewsHour, 9/12/23]

:{Video

CitationFrom the February 20, 2023, edition of Infowars' The Alex Jones Show

Newsmax’s Greg Kelly

In the wake of January 6, Newsmax prime-time host Greg Kelly has repeatedly whitewashed the violence at the Capitol on his show, claiming that Trump supporters were allowed into the building or set up by federal law enforcement and unfairly prosecuted.

2021: Kelly claimed that the insurrection was “a trap to make Trump supporters, the MAGA movement, look bad,” and alleged that police were “not doing anything” and had ushered insurrectionists into the Capitol. Kelly later claimed the insurrection was a “false flag operation” staged by federal law enforcement. [Newsmax, Greg Kelly Reports, 9/16/21, 11/3/21]

2022: Kelly continued to claim that Capitol Police and other federal agents “stood by” and that insurrectionists were “let in” to the Capitol. He also claimed that the rioters who called for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged were “speaking metaphorically” and downplayed the makeshift gallow that were erected nearby. [Newsmax, Greg Kelly Reports, 6/16/22]

2023-present: Kelly doubled down with the claim that January 6 insurrectionists were invited into the Capitol by police, claiming that it is “actually not true” that rioters violently breached the Capitol. He has also repeatedly defended Trump’s increasingly hostile campaign rhetoric, dismissing comparisons of the former president to Adolf Hitler and saying he is “a madman, and that is a good thing.” [Newsmax, Greg Kelly Reports, 11/17/23, 11/13/23, 10/19/23]

:{Video

CitationFrom the November 17, 2023, edition of Newsmax's Greg Kelly Reports

---

rubber retaliate/mirror

Michael Knowles: "A red state governor needs to have a red state secretary of state kick Biden off the ballot" | Media Matters for America

AN 12 23

State level courts in North Carolina are set to decide former President Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 Republican ballot after a new legal challenge filed by a retired GOP lawyer.

According to WRAL, lawyer Brian Martin — who was a top legal counsel in both the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations — is filing an appeal to election officials' recent decision to allow Trump's name to appear on the North Carolina GOP primary ballot in March. Martin's appeal argues that supporters of the former president may have their rights denied if they cast a "wasted" vote for a candidate who could be ruled ineligible to hold the office of president.

"The voters in the Republican primary on March 5, 2024, have a right to choose from constitutionally eligible candidates," the filing read. "If one were to vote for Donald Trump, and he is not eligible to hold the office of president, their vote will not count. Their vote will be a wasted vote, will not play a part in the selection of the next president, and such a result in constitutionally unacceptable."

Martin's filing has angered other GOP officials in the Tar Heel State. North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore (R) — who is currently running for the US House of Representatives in 2024 — said one of his top priorities when the state legislature re-convenes in January is passing a bill preventing the state from removing Trump's name from the ballot.

"We think the law should be pretty clear that President Trump will be on the ballot," Moore told WRAL.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) is going a step further, telling the outlet he was considering filing a bill that would take federal funding away from states that blocked Trump from their own respective GOP primary ballots.

The filing comes on the heels of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removing Trump from her state's primary ballot, saying that the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol constituted an insurrection, and that the former president violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by supporting it. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is expected to weigh in on that decision as well as that of the Colorado supreme court, which similarly disqualified Trump based on the insurrection clause.

mich fail on technicality? standing? did not rule on insurrection

---

an 12 23 ah

Many critics of former President Donald Trump have been applauding a decision handed down by the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 19, when the justices ruled, 4-3, that Trump is disqualified from the state's ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Section 3 states that an "officer" who has engaged in insurrection is barred from running for public office again.

Progressive attorney Elie Mystal, a frequent guest on MSNBC, applauds the ruling in an article published by The Nation the following day. But he also warns that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely strike it down.

"The (U.S.) Supreme Court will almost certainly intervene," Mystal predicts. "And, just to be plain about it, the conservative-controlled Court will almost certainly rule that Trump is allowed on the Colorado ballot. It would be wrong for anybody to get their hopes up: Republican-appointed justices are incredibly unlikely to kick the presumptive Republican nominee off of a presidential ballot."

Mystal continues, "But the Colorado opinion is designed, at least, to make the (U.S.) Supreme Court look very ugly and partisan when it bends over backward to save Trump and preserve his ability to threaten the country. That's because the Colorado opinion is grounded in two things the Republicans on the Court claim to hold dear: textualism and states' rights."

Mystal stresses that "for true textualists," the "text of Section 3 couldn't be more clear" in what it says about insurrection.

"It says what it says: Government officers who engage in insurrection cannot be officers of the government again," the progressive legal analyst argues. "Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. That's not me saying it, or Jack Smith saying it; that's what the first court to hear this case, the Colorado state court, ruled at trial a few weeks ago…. If the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes and overrules Colorado, not only will it be going against the plain text of the 14th Amendment; it will also be trampling over Colorado's right to interpret its own state laws."

---

an 12 23

Since the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last week that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the 2024 Republican primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which says an "officer" cannot participate in an insurrection — three GOP lawmakers have worked to keep President Joe Biden off the 2024 ballot as well, Truthout reports.

Per the report, "In a statement to the far right website *Breitbart*, Rep. Aaron Bernstine (R-Pennsylvania), Rep. Charlice Byrd (R-Georgia) and Rep. Cory McGarr (R-Arizona) explicitly cited the court ruling from last week as their motivation. The GOP representatives described the court's decision as 'lawfare,' despite strong evidence demonstrating Trump did indeed engage in insurrectionist behavior."

Furthermore, the news outlet reports the Republican lawmakers' rationale "has nothing to do with insurrection," but with "disagreements over policies on immigration and border security, as well as" Biden's "'alleged corrupt family business dealings with China,' which Republicans have yet to actually demonstrate beyond innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions.'"

The lawmakers wrote, "The absurdity of radical Democrat judges removing Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado will be a stain on the American political system for decades. By their very own interpretation of the law, Joe Biden is 100% not eligible to run for political office."

The news outlet reports, "This effort to disqualify Biden from being able to run isn't the only action being taken by Republicans in the wake of the Colorado ruling — Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), for instance, has similarly said he may try to block Biden from his state’s ballot, citing the same dubious claim that Biden’s border policies make him an insurrectionist."

Truthout also notes, "A snap poll from YouGov the day after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling found that 54 percent of Americans approved of the court's action, with only 35 percent opposed to it. Although quick turnaround polls such as this one aren't the most scientifically accurate, the poll suggests that a significant portion of the U.S. electorate likely approves of pursuing this option in other states to block Trump from being president again."

---

Media must stick to the facts about Colorado Supreme Court decision to ban Trump from the ballot | Media Matters for America

no oann? thus not crm?

MMA 12 23

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot, finding that he “engaged in insurrection” and therefore is not an eligible presidential candidate per the 14th Amendment. Right-wing media figures swiftly condemned the decision as “election interference” and “voter suppression,” criticized the “anti-democratic” ruling by a “corrupt Democrat cabal,” and falsely asserted there is no legal basis to remove Trump because he has not been convicted over the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

Right-wing media figures claimed the ruling constitutes “election interference,” “voter suppression,” “judicial activism,” and disenfranchisement

- Fox host Laura Ingraham opened her show by declaring, “Tonight, America is seeing the ultimate election interference.” Ingraham complained that “four unelected state judges all appointed by Democrat governors have ruled that Donald Trump must be kept off next year's presidential ballot.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle,* [12/19/23]

- Ingraham also called the decision “judicial activism.” She explained, “They take the Constitution and turn it into a piece of Silly Putty for political ends. That is classic judicial activism, is it not?” Fox News,*The Ingraham Angle*, [12/19/23]

- Discussing the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Fox host Jesse Watters said: “It's more than voter suppression and intimidation. It’s the elimination of the voter. You can't vote for the guy you want to.”Fox contributor Charlie Hurt said, “Democrats in Colorado are so afraid of allowing American voters to vote and pick the next president that they are willing to do extrajudicial things –- complete highway robbery here — in order to thwart the people's choice from being on the ballot. To them, preserving democracy requires destroying democracy.” Fox News, *Jesse Watters Primetime*, [12/19/23]

- Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett declared that the decision is “another example of election interference by Trump opponents” using “the equivalent of rigging the ballot box.”Guest host and former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the decision is “literally taking away the will of the people.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [12/19/23]

- Podcaster and former Trump administration official Monica Crowley said that “the communists don't even pretend to disguise their revolution anymore.”She also posted, “ELECTION INTERFERENCE.” Twitter/X, [12/19/23, 12/19/23]

- Fox News contributor Sara Carter wrote, “We can’t allow the courts and a weaponized bureaucracy make decisions for the American people - we should not as citizens accept this no matter how anyone feels about Trump.” She continued, “I watched it for years during my original reporting on him and the fake Russia collusion orchestrated by Hillary Clinton with the help of the very bureaucrats that are continuing to target him now. Who will be next ? imagine if he didn’t get elected - who would be sitting in the Supreme Court?” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

- Bigoted pundit and potential Trump press secretary Laura Loomer posted about the Colorado decision on X (formerly Twitter), writing: “This is ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

- Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller posted on X: “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

- Right-wing pundit Tomi Lahren posted: “Who the hell do these hacks in Colorado think they are? Trying to disqualify Trump with some BS? Unacceptable. Election interference!!!” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

## Right-wing figures condemned the decision as antidemocratic, calling Democrats “pro-tyranny” and “corrupt”

- Former Trump White House press secretary and conservative commentator Kayleigh McEnany claimed that “it’s all in the name of democracy, that they are undermining democracy — incredible — and they are using a so-called insurrection as an excuse.” She said, “Four unelected judges are trying to preempt the will of voters, the will of the people of Colorado.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [12/19/23]

- Newsmax host Greg Kelly said the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was “lawfare,” “not democratic,” and “the only thing I can think is maybe they were high.” Kelly added, “What does the other side say all the time, that Trump, he is a threat to democracy? Remember, they just said the people of Colorado can't vote for who they want to vote for.” Newsmax, *Greg Kelly Reports*, [12/19/23]

- Newsmax host Eric Bolling called the decision “an attack on our democracy” and an attempt “to punish the former president for a crime he most certainly did not commit.”Bolling said, “The Supreme Court of Colorado basically tried and convicted Trump, without an actual trial or a conviction. Apparently the decision was decided by a marijuana-smoking, crime-ridden state with a growing, massive homeless population that Donald Trump wasn't likely to win anyway.” Newsmax, *Eric Bolling The Balance*, [12/19/23]

- Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk posted on X, “The ‘defenders of Democracy’ are always trying to destroy it because they’re frauds.” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

- Conservative radio host Dan Bongino called Democrats “obviously anti-democratic” and “pro-tyranny” for the decision.He posted, “Today is yet another example of the clear and present danger the liberal/progressive cancer presents to us all.” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

- Radio personality and Fox host Mark Levin posted, “Another corrupt Democrat cabal undermines our country. These are dark and grave times.”Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

## Right-wing figures claimed that the ruling has no legal basis because January 6 was not an insurrection and Trump was not found guilty of insurrection

- Attorney and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley claimed that January 6 was “not an insurrection, it was a riot.”Turley argued that the Colorado court “just handed partisans on both sides the ultimate tool to try to shortcut elections, and it's very, very dangerous. This country is a powder keg and this court is just throwing matches at it.” He added that “to call this an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification would create a slippery slope for every state in the union.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [12/19/23]

- On Fox’s The Ingraham Angle, former Supreme Court law clerk and U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Chris Landau emphasized that “it was no accident from the very beginning that they insisted on calling this an insurrection,” calling the word choice “ludicrous.”He stated, “These seeds were planted by the Democrats on January 6 itself. It was no accident from the very beginning that they insisted on calling this an insurrection, right? I mean, again, what happened on January 6 was extremely bad news, right? But to say it's an insurrection, to say it's like the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War, which is what led to this clause in the Constitution, is ludicrous, OK. But I think they were very clever that they wanted to use that word, and I don’t know if you noticed that people were insisting from the very beginning, it was very important for them that it be called an ‘insurrection.’ How convenient, that's exactly the word the Constitution uses. This was all being set up, really, for the past two and a half years.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [12/19/23]

- Newsmax host Rob Schmitt said the decision “effectively would nullify the will of around 40% of Colorado voters,” arguing that special counsel Jack Smith “didn’t even charge Trump with insurrection.”He stated, “The court claiming Trump participated in inciting insurrection on January 6. Yet it's funny that Jack Smith, the biggest partisan hack who hates Trump more than anybody, didn't even charge Trump with insurrection. So the Supreme Court is convicting him of insurrection, and Jack Smith didn't even charge him with that.” Newsmax, *Rob Schmitt Tonight*, [12/19/23]

- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton posted, “Fact check: Trump didn't engage in insurrection/rebellion -- plus the relevant 14th Amendment clause doesn't apply to the president.” Twitter/X, [12/19/23]

---

mma 12 23

MATT GERTZ

PUBLISHED 12/20/23

I don’t know what will happen now that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the presidential ballot. There is no precedent for implementing the 14th Amendment’s ban on candidates who supported insurrection. But there’s also no precedent for a president seeking to subvert the results of an election he lost by summoning a mob of supporters to the White House and then unleashing it on Congress to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

:{What I do know is that attempts to seek accountability for the events of January 6, 2021, are playing out in an environment in which the Trumpist media have developed a twisted alternate narrative of that insurrection. The right-wing stars conservatives trust most have spent the last few years downplaying the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol.

They've largely succeeded in convincing the Republican base and the party’s politicians to follow them, creating a stark partisan divide over whether it was wrong for Trump to try to overturn American democracy. And after portraying Trump’s federal and state election subversion charges as illegitimate attacks on democracy, they’re now doing the same thing for the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.}:

The right-wing effort to minimize January 6 and Trump’s role in fomenting it began that very day. Fox hosts who knew better told their viewers that Trump’s supporters had been responding to reasonable fears that the election had been stolen, while any violence may have been caused by antifa interlopers.

:{In the intervening years, Trumpist media stars — led by former Fox host Tucker Carlson — cosseted their viewers with a slew of lies about January 6. There was no “insurrection,” just a “political protest [that] got out of hand” in which “the overwhelming majority” of participants were “orderly and meek.” The rioter shot and killed by law enforcement while trying to breach the speaker’s gallery was a martyr, while the officers who were nearly beaten to death during the attack deserve mockery.

The violence was orchestrated by undercover federal agents as part of a sinister plot to imprison patriotic Americans for their conservative views. The events were comparable to staffers for a late-night talk show shooting an unauthorized video in the Capitol complex, or a Democratic congressman foolishly pulling a fire alarm, or progressive protests at state capitols.}:

None of this is true. Of the more than 1,100 people federal prosecutors have charged with crimes related to the riot, at least 350 have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees (roughly 140 officers were assaulted that day). Nearly a third of those were also charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against police officers or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Several leaders of right-wing extremist groups have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the insurrection.

And Republican political leaders know it isn’t true. The mob forced the party’s senators and representatives to evacuate from their legislative chambers and huddle in a secure location. When they emerged, many condemned both what they described as a “violent insurrection” and Trump’s role in fomenting it.

But the influence right-wing media have on their audience is among the most powerful forces in modern American politics. The stars spun a web of lies, viewers and listeners became convinced it was truth, and GOP leaders either followed along or were purged from office. Republican members of Congress now treat January 6 as a punchline, while Trump’s serious would-be rivals are loath to try to use his attempt to subvert the election on the campaign trail. And Trump himself is promising full pardons for “a large portion” of January 6 convicts.

As news of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision broke on Tuesday night, Trump’s propagandists flew into a frenzy.

“Tonight, America is seeing the ultimate in election interference,” Fox’s Laura Ingraham alleged on her show, before bringing on network contributor Jonathan Turley to decry the court’s decision as “strikingly anti-democratic” and “chilling.” On Steve Bannon’s War Room, a guest denounced “republic-ending tactics by the Democrats.”

The very people who supported Trump’s electoral subversion plot and minimized the resulting violent effort to overturn democracy are now lashing out at the prospect of Trump suffering consequences for his actions. They’ve convinced a large swath of the country that he did nothing that deserves accountability. And if Trump once again tries to overturn an election, they’ll be ready to help.

---

Potential for threats from Trump in 14th Amendment case sways Colorado judge - Alternet.org

tpm 11 9

A Michigan judge on Thursday heard arguments from groups seeking to knock Donald Trump off the ballot, the only swing state in which a serious Disqualification Clause case against the former President has been filed.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Robert Redford appeared skeptical of arguments that the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause bars Trump from appearing on the ballot, though he was careful to grill both sides on their arguments.

The court had been scheduled to hear three separate lawsuits about the issue: two from plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump, and a countersuit filed by the former president seeking to ensure that he would remain on the ballot.

But Judge Redford shut down Trump’s countersuit after it emerged that his attorneys had committed a procedural error by failing to include a verification page in their complaint.

That left arguments on a suit brought by serial Michigan litigant Robert Davis and Free Speech for People, a good government group which has brought suits in Michigan and Minnesota seeking to disqualify Trump.

Judge Redford referenced a Thursday decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court punting the Disqualification Clause case there until the general election.

Free Speech for People attorney Mark Brewer replied that they were starting “from the premise that Michigan law vastly differs from that of Minnesota,” and added later that the state should not “dragoon” private political parties into having ineligible candidates run in party primaries.

But Judge Redford expressed the most interest in what could end up being another way to punt the issue: whether the Section Three Disqualification Clause bars candidates seeking office, not just those already elected.

Judge Redford asked, “Your position, if correct, doesn’t it make a dead letter the last sentence of Section Three of the 13th Amendment?” That provision allows Congress to remove the disqualification by a two/thirds vote.

He added, “Let’s assume somebody does it,” referring to the momentous decision to disqualify Trump. Wouldn’t that, he asked, deprive Congress of the ability to remove the disqualification?

“Do you know of any case since the adoption of the amendment that a person seeking to become a candidate for office, as opposed to someone who had already stood and was seeking to serve, who has sought that two/thirds relief?” Redford asked.

Brewer, the plaintiff’s attorney, replied that the question was “speculative” because Trump had yet to ask for that amnesty.

Later on, during questioning of Trump’s attorneys, Judge Redford raised a similar issue. Redford said that he had read earlier drafts of the 14th Amendment in which members of Congress had initially separated a ban on running from office from a ban on holding office.

“That was a conscious choice,” the Trump attorney replied.

Brewer emphasized that the Disqualification Clause “only allows amnesty” from Congress, meaning that lawmakers’ ability to act is limited. That goes to a key debate which has come up in the Disqualification Clause cases: whether Congress needs to act in order to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment.

Judge Redford pressed Brewer on the question, prodding him to say whether he believed the 14th Amendment only barred insurrectionists from serving, and not from candidacy.

“That would require, what, the country to rerun an entire presidential election?” Brewer replied at one point, saying that it would be “chaos” unless the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

---

Minnesota Supreme Court: It’s Too Early To DQ Trump From 2024 Ballot - TPM – Talking Points Memo

---

14th disqual

Supreme Court faces a 'desperate race against time' to avoid a 'Constitutional crisis' - Alternet.org

---