Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot

Several Oath Keeper groups had a large cache of weapons at the ready on Jan 6 just outside D. C. Some at trial claim they were defense purposes only. But others claim they were just waiting for Trump to declare martial law. The theory goes Trump never "gave the order" because the insurrection wasn't getting the widespread support Trump thought it would. And Trump hesitated to take the next step.

 

Furthermore, D. C. has very restrictive gun laws, and metal detectors were set up at the rally area. Something Trump wasn't happy about. Trump was reportedly furious that metal detectors was slowing down the crowd and not allowing armed people in with the masses.

 

1. I never said let bygones be bygones. Charge the criminals.
2. Trump is not responsible for what happened at the Capitol because he didn't ask for it or call for it.
3. Also, none of that proves "insurrection."

 

This doesn't prove the point you think it does.

Why on Earth would someone not go all-in on an insurrection if that's what they've decided to do? Why would they set it up for failure knowing that it would be a losing effort? Taking a halfway measure would be the worst of both worlds from Trump's perspective because you won't have a successful insurrection, but you end up being treated like an insurrectionist.

The simpler explanation is that Trump rallied a crowd into a frenzy which was supposed to end in peaceful protest, but things got out of hand.

 

The people involved were not monolithic IMO, and that's reflected by the different sentences that have been imposed. I think at the very least there was a hope to delay and put pressure on Pence and Congress, similar to what was came to be known as the "Brooks Brothers Riot" (below). Having arsenals on standby might have just been an effort to be prepared in case things went really sideways, and the violence became widespread. Notably, Trump was still changing DOD personnel in the lead up to January 6th, and it was concerning enough that 10 former defense secretaries issued a joint statement about what was happening.

Brooks Brothers riot - Wikipedia

The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration led by Republican staffers at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early.

The name referenced the protesters' corporate attire; described by Paul Gigot in an editorial for The Wall Street Journal as "50-year-old white lawyers with cell phones and Hermès ties", differentiating them from local citizens concerned about vote counting.[1] Many of the demonstrators were Republican staffers.[2] Both Roger Stone and Brad Blakeman take credit for managing the riot from a command post, although their accounts contradict each other.[2] Republican New York Representative John E. Sweeney gave the signal that started the riot,[3] telling an aide to "shut it down".[4][5]

****

Republicans objected to this change of plans. John E. Sweeney of New York, nicknamed "Congressman Kick-Ass" by President Bush for his work in Florida,[9] set the incident in motion[10] by telling an aide to 'stop them'[1][5] and to "Shut it down."[1][5] The demonstration turned violent and, according to The New York Times, "several people were trampled, punched or kicked when protesters tried to rush the doors outside the office of the Miami-Dade supervisor of elections. Sheriff's deputies restored order." Democratic National Committee aide Luis Rosero claimed to be kicked and punched outside of Leahy's office.[11] Within two hours after the event, the canvassing board unanimously voted to shut down the count, in part due to perceptions that the process was not open or fair, and in part because the court-mandated deadline had become impossible to meet, due to the interference.[11][12]

Sweeney defended his actions, arguing that his aim was not to stop the hand recount, but to restore the process to public view.[3] Other Bush supporters acknowledged they hoped to end the recount. "We were trying to stop the recount; Bush had already won," said Evilio Cepero, a reporter for WAQI, an influential Spanish talk radio station in Miami. "We were urging people to come downtown and support and protest this injustice." A Republican lawyer commented, "People were pounding on the doors, but they had an absolute right to get in."[11] The protest interfered with attendance by official observers and hindered access by members of the press.[13] In a radio interview in Albany on November 28, Sweeney said, "What I essentially told my people is, 'You've got to stop them'." "Whether I said, 'You've got to shut it down' or 'stop them,' I frankly don't quite recall."[3]

 

Michigan Supreme Court rejects 14th Amendment election challenge to Trump

 

Planning an insurrection to overthrow a government isn't easy. And plenty of instances of failure in history, from Beer Pusch to the Bay of Pigs. Just because the insurrection failed, doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt.

I don't claim to know Trump's mindset on Jan 6, but why would he be upset that gun laws and metal detectors were being enforced that day? And remember, there's testimony Trump originally wanted to join the mob at the Capitol. Trump's Plan A was likely a fully armed insurrection, where he leads the pack down towards the Capitol and is either installed as POTUS, or declares martial law. At which time, the Oath Keepers are ready.

The metal detectors plus the Secret Service denying Trump going to the Capitol thwarted Plan A. Plan B was to gin up the mob, direct them towards Congress, and hope they were greeted as welcome heroes by the Capitol Police. Create enough chaos and Trump declares martial law, activating the Oath Keepers. But the Capitol Police didn't greet the mob as heroes, and Trump's advisors, including his kids, were mortified of what was happening. Plan B failed.

What we're seeing is Plan C. Plausible Deniability. The insurrection failed, so claim the cache of weapons was for defense only, and claim Trump didn't want an insurrection.

Just conjecture on my part, but backed by the evidence we already know. And Jack Smith likely has a lot more evidence we haven't seen yet.

 

No, but I think you need to show more than what happened to show a genuine attempt.

 

To me, "plausible deniability" means he shouldn't be kept off a ballot and universally branded as an insurrectionist.

 

Not if it can be proven Trump is only at plan C because the failed Plans A and B were insurrection attempts where Trump was an active participant. Then the 14thA would kick in.

 

Prove that he tried to violently overthrow the government?

I'd love to see evidence of that.

 

We'll see soon enough as Jack Smith puts on his case in DC (once Trump's lawyers run out of tricks to delay the trial).

Regardless of his legal culpability, his inaction on Jan 6th to in any way stop what was happening at the Capitol should be disqualifying in and of itself.

 

That's your opinion. We used to have this thing called elections to decide that. Remember those days?

 

It's not a matter of ignoring the words of the 14th Amendment, it's a matter of whether Trump's actions amount to any of the applicable provisions of the 14th Amendment.

Do Trump's actions amount to insurrection with such clarity that he should be barred from running for President under the 14th Amendment? I don't think courts really want to get into this wishy washy game where "maybe someone could call so and so an insurrectionist" or "a case can be made he was providing aid and comfort to American enemies." If that's the standard courts want to go with, our election system is about to make 2020 look like an operation of the utmost surgical precision. It's going to be an absolute mess.

So what's the answer? My guess is a narrow interpretation of that provision of the 14th Amendment, which is both the most practical long-term answer and what the framers probably intended.

 

It isn't about what you or I think. It's about what the legal minds and judges think. But to me, the fact that it can be argued that Trump participated in an insurrection and it's not a major stretch, that alone should make people not want to vote for Trump.

 

I never said it isn't a major stretch. I'm specifically saying it is a stretch.

That's your opinion, but we also have a binary choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

January 6th should be a tick against Trump for everybody, but it's one of many factors.

 

If you read the ruling, they go into quite a bit of detail about what constitutes an insurrection and why Trump's actions meet this bar.

 

It isn’t a stretch at all IMO to say Trump engaged in an insurrection. I am always amazed at the lengths people will go to rationalize and minimize what he did. But I’m not comfortable with the seeming lack of a defined due process.

 

It's not a stretch. If it was, the Judges on the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to make the ruling they did. Read it. Overturned or not, it's solid.

And if illegally attempting to overturn a free and fair election is just a tick against Trump... then I have no words. Scared to think what you think of the Trump go to hell Merry Christmas message.

 

And SCOTUS will likely interpret "insurrection" more narrowly. It's a generally undefined term in terms of scope for 14th Amendment purposes.