Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTONDonald Trump is disqualified from serving as president and barred from appearing on ballots for president in Colorado under the 14th Amendment, according to a Colorado Supreme Court ruling issued today in a case brought on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the firms Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law, LLC and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC. This is the first time a presidential candidate has been disqualified or removed from a ballot under the 14th Amendments disqualification clause.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the president is an officer under the United States Constitution and that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the president, reversing a ruling by a district court in November that Trump could appear on Colorado ballots for president despite engaging in insurrection on January 6, 2021. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling also denied Donald Trumps appeal on eleven issues, affirming that Trump engaged in insurrection and that his actions on and leading up to January 6, 2021 are not protected by the First Amendment.

My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates. Todays win does just that, said petitioner and former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate Norma Anderson. Long before this lawsuit was filed, I had already read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that it applied to Donald Trump, given his actions leading up to and on January 6th. I am proud to be a petitioner, and gratified that the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion we all did.

The courts decision today affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who disqualified himself from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and that Secretary Griswold must keep him off of Colorados primary ballot. It is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country, said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government. It has been an honor to represent the petitioners, and we look forward to ensuring that this vitally important ruling stands.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an oathto support the Constitution of the United States and then has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump stood before the nation and took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump violated that oath by recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a futile attempt to remain in office.

We are gratified by the Colorado Supreme Courts determination that Trump is disqualified from appearing on any Colorado ballot. He betrayed his oath to the Constitution by engaging in insurrection against it, and by doing so he made himself ineligible for public office, said Sean Grimsley of Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC. We hope and believe other states will now follow suit.

This is the second time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to bar officials who participated in the January 6th insurrection from elected office. Last year, CREW represented residents of New Mexico who sued to remove county commissioner Couy Griffin from office, the first successful case to be brought under Section 3 since 1869. The judge in that case determined January 6th was an insurrection under the Constitution and removed Griffin from office based on his engagement in the insurrection.

Originally posted here:
Colorado Supreme Court bars Trump from ballot - CREW - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Donald Trumpallegedly personally pressured election officials in Michigan not to certify the 2020 presidential election and it was caught on tape, according to new reporting by The Detroit News.

The outlet published a story on Thursday with echoes of a similar situation in Fulton County, Ga. where Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Jan. 2021 to demand he "find 11,780 votes" to change the electoral outcome in his favor after Joe Biden was determined to have won the state.

In Michigan, Trump reportedly spoke by phone to two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers on Nov. 17, 2020, pressuring them not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

The Detroit News reports that in the call, which was recorded and reviewed by the outlet, Trump told the two election officials: "We've got to fight for our country," and "We can't let these people take our country away from us," while telling them they would look "terrible" if they signed the certification, as legally required.

The outlet reports that the phone call also included Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who said on the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

Trump, the outlet reports, added: "We'll take care of that."

The two canvassers Monica Palmer and William Hartmann ultimately refused that night to certify the votes cast in Wayne County, which is Michigan's largest. The move made it impossible for the county to officially declare the winner of the election that night. Later, the two relented after increasing pressure.

The recorded call is likely to figure into the federal investigation of Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In August, Trump was indicted on four criminal counts by a federal grand jury and, per theindictment, charged with one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

The indictment alleges that Trump, after losing the 2020 presidential election, "was determined to remain in power." The indictment also lists several unnamed co-conspirators, including four attorneys, a Justice Department official, and a political consultant who "helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification" of votes.

"So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won," it reads.

Also in August, Trump was indicted in Georgia, where he was charged with 13 felonycounts: racketeering (violation of the Georgia RICO Act); three counts of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer; conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer; two counts conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree; two counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings; conspiracy to commit filing false documents; filing false documents; and two counts of false statements and writings.

The Georgia investigation also hinges on Trump and his allies' behavior following hisloss of the popular vote in the state, and on the call he made to Raffensperger to demand he "find 11,780 votes" to change the outcome.

Never miss a story sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer.

Thetwice-impeachedformer president has been indicted four times over the past year the first one making him the only U.S. president to face criminal charges, and the next two further distinguishing him as the only president to face federal charges.

Continued here:
Donald Trump Pressured Michigan Election Officials Not to Certify the 2020 Election and It Was Caught on Tape ... - PEOPLE

Colorados top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country.

The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trumps name from the states Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly, a four-justice majority wrote, with three justices dissenting. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Mr. Trumps campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado justices anticipated that likelihood by putting their ruling on hold at least until Jan. 4; if Mr. Trump appeals before then, the hold will continue until the Supreme Court rules. And while Tuesdays ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nations highest court to decide the question for all 50.

Its hard for me to see how they dont take this one, because this certainly seems to be one of those questions that requires some national resolution, said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University who has closely followed the Colorado case and related lawsuits around the country.

If the justices take up the case, it will join a pile of other Trump-related matters they have agreed or are likely to decide, including whether he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took in office and the scope of an obstruction charge that is central to his federal Jan. 6 case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself, and it is already under extraordinary political pressure and scrutiny both for its rulings and its justices ethics.

Once again, the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election, said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who compared the stakes to Bush v. Gore. But, unlike in 2000, the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.

In the Colorado courts lengthy ruling on Tuesday, the justices there reversed a Denver district judges finding last month that Section 3 did not apply to the presidency. They affirmed the district judges other key conclusions: that Mr. Trumps actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated.

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the justices wrote. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado secretary of state to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

Mr. Trumps campaign denounced the ruling, which is likely to inflame a Republican base that he has primed to see the array of civil and criminal cases against him as a witch hunt. Politically, his standing among Republican primary voters has only risen in the wake of the dozens of criminal charges against him.

Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing groups scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trumps name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice, a campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.

Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify Mr. Trump there. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Tuesdays ruling is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country, Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. His organization represented the voters seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump in Colorado.

Mr. Trump himself, who has routinely railed against unfavorable rulings, did not explicitly mention the Colorado Supreme Court decision in a speech Tuesday evening in Waterloo, Iowa but his campaign was already fund-raising off it. An email to his supporters accused Democrats of trying to nullify Trump votes and asked for contributions to help defend his place on ballots.

Republican elected officials quickly circled the wagons around Mr. Trump, and a super PAC supporting him blasted out some of their comments to supporters.

In one more illustration of the unusual nature of the 2024 Republican primary race in which even the candidates seeking to defeat Mr. Trump for the partys nomination have largely shied away from condemning him his main rivals, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, both suggested that the ruling was an abuse of judicial power.

The case hinged on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?

Judge Sarah B. Wallace, who made the district court ruling in Colorado, had said yes to all but the last question.

Because Section 3 enumerates several offices but not the presidency, and because the presidential oath is worded differently from the oaths of the enumerated offices, Judge Wallace concluded that the broad phrase officers of the United States was not intended to include the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed.

We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section 3, the majority wrote. It seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an office.

The three justices who dissented did so on procedural grounds, not on the merits of whether Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection or whether Section 3 applies to the presidency. In three separate dissenting opinions, each based on different legal arguments, they all concluded that the court had overstepped its authority.

Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past dare I say, engaged in insurrection there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office, Justice Carlos Samour Jr. wrote in his dissent.

He added, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section 3 disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis.

Several legal experts emphasized in interviews with The New York Times that the case involved novel legal and constitutional questions ones for which there is no clear precedent. This is a provision of the Constitution that we just didnt expect to start using again, Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of Section 3, which was written after the Civil War to prevent members of the Confederacy from holding office.

Professor Hasen, of U.C.L.A., called the ruling very carefully crafted and considered.

That said, many of the issues that the Colorado Supreme Court resolved could well be decided differently by the U.S. Supreme Court if it ends up reviewing the case on the merits, he said. Many of these are issues of first impression that courts have never had to address before.

Michael Gold and Adam Liptak contributed reporting.

Original post:
Trump Is Disqualified From 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling - The New York Times

The Supreme Courts decision on Friday not to fast-track consideration of former President Donald J. Trumps claim that he is immune to prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election was unquestionably a victory for Mr. Trump and his lawyers.

The choice by the justices not to take up the issue now rendered without explanation gave a boost to the former presidents legal strategy of delaying the proceedings as much as possible in the hopes of running out the clock before Election Day.

It is not clear, however, that the decision holds any clues to what the Supreme Court might think of the substance of his immunity claim. And the degree to which it pushes off Mr. Trumps trial will only be determined in coming weeks as the clash over whether he can be prosecuted plays out in the federal appeals court in Washington and then perhaps makes its way right back to the justices.

How the Supreme Court handles the case at that point could still have profound implications, both for whether the federal election interference indictment will stand and for whether Mr. Trump might succeed in pushing a trial past the election. At that point, if he wins the presidency, he could order the charges to be dropped.

Here is a look at whats ahead.

Mr. Trump is attempting to get the entire indictment against him tossed out with an argument that has never before been tested by the courts largely because no one else has ever made it this way. He is claiming that he is absolutely immune to criminal prosecution on the charges of election interference because they stem from acts he took while he was in the White House.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is handling the underlying case in Federal District Court in Washington, rejected that claim earlier this month in a decision that found there was nothing in the Constitution or American history supporting the idea that the holder of the nations highest position, once out of office, should not be subject to the federal criminal law like everybody else.

Mr. Trump appealed the decision to the first court above Judge Chutkans: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But fearing that a protracted appeal could delay the case from going to trial as scheduled in March, Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed the indictment, made an unusual request to the Supreme Court: He asked the justices to step in front of the appeals court and consider the case first to speed up the process and preserve the current trial date.

On Friday, in a one-sentence order, the Supreme Court turned down Mr. Smiths request.

The appeals court in Washington will hear the immunity matter. In fact, the court will do so on a schedule that is extremely accelerated by judicial standards.

A three-judge panel of the court made up of one judge named by President George H.W. Bush and two appointed by President Biden has ordered all of the briefs in the case to be turned in by Jan. 2. It has set a hearing for oral arguments on Jan. 9.

In a sign of how quickly the panel is moving, the judges told Mr. Trumps lawyers to turn in their first round of court papers on Saturday, two days before Christmas. Mr. Smiths team has been ordered to submit its own papers on the following Saturday, the day before New Years Eve.

If the appeals court decides in Mr. Trumps favor, Mr. Smiths office would almost certainly challenge the loss in front of the Supreme Court, assuming the justices agreed to hear it.

But the more likely scenario is that the three appellate judges rule against Mr. Trump, rejecting his claims of immunity.

At that point, he could seek to have the entire circuit court hear the appeal a move that, if nothing else, would eat up more time. If the full court declined to take the case or ruled against him, he would likely ask the Supreme Court to step in for the second time.

In theory, the Supreme Court could decline to take up the immunity matter if Mr. Trump loses and simply let the appeals court ruling stand. That option could be appealing to the justices if they want to avoid stepping directly into a highly charged political issue just one of several they are likely to confront in coming months that could have a bearing on Mr. Trumps chances of reclaiming the White House.

Were that to happen, the case would go back to Judge Chutkan and she would set a new date for trial. Her handling of the case so far suggests that she would move the proceedings along at a rapid clip.

If, however, the Supreme Court were to take the case, the justices would have to make another critical decision: how fast to hear it. It is possible they could consider the case quickly and return a ruling on the immunity issue by or even well before the end of their current term in June.

But Mr. Smith has expressed concern in filings to the court that the justices might not be able to complete their work before the end of this term. If they do not, the case would drag into the next term, which does not get underway until October, too late to resolve before Election Day.

If the appeals court returns a quick decision against Mr. Trump and the Supreme Court lets that decision stand, the trial might be delayed, but perhaps only by a matter of weeks. Under this scenario, it is conceivable that the case could go in front of a jury by April or May, well before the heart of the campaign season.

If the Supreme Court takes the case and hears it on a fast-tracked schedule, the trial could be delayed for somewhat longer perhaps by a matter of months. That would mean a trial could be held over the summer, a fraught possibility given that the Republican nominating convention is in July and that Mr. Trump, assuming he is the partys nominee, could be kept from doing much traditional campaigning for the duration of the trial.

But if the Supreme Court takes the case and follows a leisurely pace in considering it, there might not be a trial at all before the general election in November. In that case, voters would not have the chance to hear the evidence in the case against Mr. Trump before making their choice and a President Trump could choose to make sure they do not get the chance after the election either.

View post:
When Will Trump Stand Trial? Supreme Court Order May Help Him Delay. - The New York Times

The Supreme Court declined on Friday to decide for now whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country.

It is unclear what the courts order will mean for the timing of the trial, which is scheduled to start on March 4, though it makes postponement more likely. The case will now move forward in an appeals court, which has put it on a fast track, and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks or months.

In denying review, the justices gave no reasons, which is typical, and there were no noted dissents.

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump, had asked the justices to move with extraordinary speed, bypassing the appeals court.

Any significant delays could plunge the trial into the heart of the 2024 campaign season or push it past the election, when Mr. Trump could order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidency.

A speedy decision by the justices was of the essence, Mr. Smith said in his petition seeking immediate Supreme Court review, because Mr. Trumps appeal of a trial judges ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspended the criminal trial.

Mr. Smith wrote that the case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.

The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request, Mr. Smith added. This is an extraordinary case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has put the case on a brisk schedule, ordering expedited briefing and scheduling arguments for Jan. 9.

The case will be heard by a three-member panel made up of Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, who were both appointed by President Biden.

The panel will probably issue a prompt decision. If Mr. Trump loses, he could ask the full appeals court to rehear the case. In the end, the losing side will in all likelihood return to the Supreme Court.

The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, rejected Mr. Trumps sweeping claims that he had absolute immunity from the election interference indictment because it was based on actions he took while in office. She has since suspended proceedings in the case while an appeal moves forward.

Mr. Smith urged the justices to move fast: The public importance of the issues, the imminence of the scheduled trial date and the need for a prompt and final resolution of respondents immunity claims counsel in favor of this courts expedited review at this time.

Mr. Trumps lawyers took the opposite view, asking the justices to follow the usual procedure by letting the appeals court consider the matter first.

Importance does not automatically necessitate speed, Mr. Trumps brief said. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts call for more careful deliberation, not less.

Mr. Smith called that approach misguided.

The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court, he wrote. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves for the first time in our nations history criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office.

And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election, Mr. Smith added.

Mr. Trumps lawyers countered that the case, and Mr. Smiths desire to resolve it promptly, was driven by political considerations.

He confuses the public interest with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a monthslong criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration, the brief said.

The two sides rely on precedents that point in opposite directions, both involving President Richard M. Nixon.

In 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a trial subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office, rejecting his claims of executive privilege.

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote.

Eight years later, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court voted 5 to 4 in favor of Nixon in a civil case brought by an Air Force analyst who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

In view of the special nature of the presidents constitutional office and functions, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.

The Supreme Court will soon confront a different question arising from the aftermath of the 2020 election. On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump is not eligible to be on the primary ballot in that state under a provision of the Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Mr. Trump has said he will appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Trump's Immunity Defense for Now - The New York Times