Of all the cases currently against former President Donald Trump, the Colorado case attempting to remove Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot in that state is the most threatening at the moment.
Challenges are being made in other states, but this case is proceeding quickly. the suit argues that Trump should be banned from participating and running in the 2024 presidential race. The law cited is under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which the suit says bars any official who has “engaged in an insurrection…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can hold any office in the United States.
Once again, the word “insurrection” in regard to the events at the Capitol on Jan 6 are being used as if they have been proven in Trump’s case. In fact, those words have never been proven and possibly this suit will bring that to light.
Trump had requested to move the case to federal court and was denied.
As the case proceeds, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, a District Court Judge for Colorado’s Second Judicial District, has this week scheduled the case for a five-day hearing starting October 30. She allowed that the case may not have merit by saying this week, “I see my job as, at least in part, getting this to the Colorado Supreme Court, assuming that it proceeds forward.”
Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, proposed the protective order in court Friday. He cited federal prosecutor Jack Smith last week seeking a gag order against Trump as Trump has continually posted about the 2020 election. Just like Smith, he seeks to silence Trump’s free speech.
“At least one of the parties has a tendency to tweet — or Truth Social,” Grimsley said, referring to Trump’s own social network where he broadcasts most of his statements, “about witnesses and the courts.”
CPR News reported:
“In explaining her timeline, Wallace said she wants to be able to issue a written ruling with enough time for the case to be appealed ip through the courts. The deadline to certify Colorado’s primary ballot is January 5, 2024.”
Now, on Friday, plaintiffs have succeeded in convincing the judge to issue a “protective order” in regard to Trump posting about the proceedings and people involved in the process, such as witnesses.
“I 100% understand everybody’s concerns for the parties, the lawyers, and frankly myself and my staff based on what we’ve seen in other cases,” District Judge Sarah B. Wallace said as she agreed to the protective order.
Independent reports the fact that the order is redundant:
Scott Gessler, a former Colorado secretary of state representing Trump in the case, opposed the order. He pointed out that a protective order was unnecessary because threats and intimidation already are prohibited by law.
Gessler said heated rhetoric in this case has come partly from the left.
“We do have robust political debate going on here,” he said. “For better or worse, this case has become a focal point.”
All the lawsuits around the country seeking to keep ‘trump form the 2024 election are using the rerely used Civil War era clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that was originally written to address specifics in the aftermath of that war.
The plaintiffs in the Colorado case include liberal and RINO Colorado politicians Claudine Schneider, Norma Anderson, Krista Kafer, Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian. It is reported that the plaintiffs have deep pockets and are determined in their suit to show that Trump “tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election” and incited and “engaged in” the Jan 6 “insurrection.”
A parallel case in Minnesota filed by another well-financed liberal group is scheduled to be heard by that state’s supreme court on Nov. 2.
Gessler, a former Republican Colorado secretary of state, indicated he intends to try to get the case tossed under a recent Colorado law that protects people who exercise First Amendmnet rights from the threats of lawsuits – known as an anti-SLAPP law. The allegations against Trump are all based on his speech, Gessler said, reports Colorado News.
“We believe it’s a winner,” Gessler said of the pending motion under anti-SLAPP – or “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Gessler has pointed out the use of the word “insurrection” which has never been proven to apply to Trump himself.
As the first case using this clause to go after President Trump, all eyes are on the proceedings as the case should prove to define the use of the obscure, never-before-used-in-regard-to-a-presidential-election, clause.
Trump’s attorneys are scheduled to file two motions to dismiss the lawsuit later Friday. One will contend the litigation is an attempt to retaliate against Trump’s free speech rights. Wallace has set an Oct. 13 hearing to debate that claim.
It is obvious that the opposition to Trump is grasping at straws in order to silence him, thus the use of the untried clause in the 14th Amendment.
Rephrased from: The Republic Brief By: Trump Knows
Learn To Play Video Poker Perfectly – Free Training Program