The Associated Press published this photo of Donald Trump today, January 11, 2024, during the closing arguments of his NY civil fraud trial. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a good look, a damn good look, at his face. That is not the look of man who's confident in any of his boasts, bluster and bravado that he's been peddling during the course of this trial. That's the look of defeat, of being demoralized, broken. Trump's face belies his protestations of innocence, “I’ve done nothing wrong,” it's politically motivated, etc. He now looks all of his 77 years, old, stressed, haggard with worry lines etched in his forehead, sagging jowls, deep furrows at the corner of his lips. There's wisdom in words, what you sow, so shall you reap. Trump may now be reaping the whirlwind of his actions.
'A wounded animal that is cornered': Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Saturday and wrote, "Republican Judges are very often afraid to do the right thing. They go out of their way to show they are totally impartial, to the point of making really bad and unfair decisions. Their counterparts, Judges appointed by Democrats, like Biden or Obama, laugh at the stupidity of it all. They go out of their way to follow the party line, they don’t give the opposition a chance. Such a difference — It is so SAD to see!" Trump later lashed out at "Trump-hating" Judge Lewis Kaplan who is overseeing the second E. Jean Carroll defamation trial.
'Go home to mommy': Trump pouts as protester interrupts him for 'taking millions' A protester interrupted former President Donald Trump's campaign event just a day before the Iowa caucus. During a speech in Indianola on Sunday, Trump was speaking about Ron DeSantis when a protester accused him of wrongly "taking millions" as president. "Thank you, darling," the former president replied. "Thank you. Thank you. That's all right." "Go home to mommy, your mommy's waiting. Go home to mommy,"
Colorado Voters Tell Supreme Court Trump’s Jan. 6 Insurrection “Will Forever Stain” US History https://factkeepers.com/colorado-vo...6-insurrection-will-forever-stain-us-history/ The twisted and convoluted appeal filed by Trump's attorneys to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn his ban from the Colorado ballot has now been answered by the voters bringing the original case. The plaintiffs seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential election ballots filed their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 26, 2024. They asked the court to uphold the ruling by Colorado’s highest court that Trump engaged in an insurrection against the United States and, accordingly, should be disqualified from the presidential election under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump “refused to accept the will of the over 80 million Americans who voted against him,” the brief filed by Norma Anderson and several other plaintiffs said. “Instead of peacefully ceding power, Trump intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate effort to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.” Anderson, a Republican and former Colorado state lawmaker, and several other plaintiffs had filed suit in September 2023 to keep Trump off the 2024 Colorado ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court’s conclusion that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot was appealed by Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 bars those who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office. The outcome of the case will likely determine if Trump can appear on ballots in states across the country. Facts vs. Assertions Unlike Trump’s brief, which he filed with the Supreme Court on Jan. 18, Anderson primarily focuses on the facts, pointing out that Trump’s brief lacks any meaningful rebuttal of the “most damning evidence against him.” Some of the “most damning evidence” that Anderson’s brief highlights includes how Trump “deliberately summoned to D.C. an angry and armed crowd who came ready to fight” and that Trump’s speech on the White House Ellipse “explicitly and implicitly incited the angry and armed crowd to imminent lawless violence.” The Anderson brief describes how the Jan. 6 attackers “injured over 140 law enforcement officers, left one dead, and forced Congress and Vice President (Mike) Pence to flee for their lives.” In his brief, Trump mainly argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency because the president is not an “officer” of the United States under the Constitution. Trump’s brief also argued that Section 3 does not bar a candidate from running for office but rather bars the candidate from holding office, if elected. And Trump asserted in his brief that “Calling for peace, patriotism, respect for law and order, and directing the Secretary of Defense to do what needs to be done to protect the American people is in no way inciting or participating in an ‘insurrection.’” ‘Monumental’ Case The Supreme Court will have several issues to consider in this case. The justices will have to address the legal questions presented by Trump, such as whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency. And the court will also have to answer mixed questions of law and fact. Traditionally, the Supreme Court does not delve into questions of fact in the cases it considers—those facts are understood to have been established in lower court decisions. And while I initially stated that the court would not consider such questions in this case, I now join other constitutional scholars who believe the court will likely have to answer what constitutes an insurrection under the 14th Amendment, and whether Trump’s actions—or inactions—sufficiently meet that definition. Perhaps the justices will turn to the history of the 14th Amendment to answer those questions. As Anderson’s brief points out, Congress and the states ratified the amendment, including Section 3, after the Civil War because they believed that oath-breaking insurrectionists could, if given the power of elected office, dismantle the country’s constitutional system from within. The 39th Congress considered Section 3 a necessary measure of self-defense—ensuring that those who had proven themselves faithless would be deprived of the political power to threaten the future peace and security of the United States. But Section 3’s text may present the deciding factors for the court. Section 3 clearly states that “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.” It provides no language that appears to prohibit candidates from running for office. Ultimately, Trump v. Anderson will be a monumental case. Regardless of its outcome, however, Anderson’s brief asserts that the “desecration of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, will forever stain our Nation’s history.” This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Retired conservative federal judge urges Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from office https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/29/politics/luttig-conway-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/index.html A former conservative federal appellate judge is urging the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, arguing the ex-president’s effort to cling to power after his 2020 election loss was “broader” than South Carolina’s secession from the US that triggered the Civil War. “Mr. Trump tried to prevent the newly-elected President Biden from governing anywhere in the United States. The South Carolina secession prevented the newly-elected President Lincoln from governing only in that State,” J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday. “Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected President,” the brief said. “In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself under Section 3 (of the Constitution).” Luttig has long been one of the most high-profileconservatives to argue that Trump engaged in an insurrection following his loss in 2020 and that he should as a result be barred from holding office. The former judge played a critical role in the heated fight over the certification of the 2020 presidential election, providing in a series of tweets legal ammunition to help then-Vice President Mike Pence defy Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. The US Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to review the unprecedented decision from the Colorado Supreme Court that removed him from that state’s ballot. In a 4-3 ruling issued last month, the state court said Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding office covers his conduct on January 6, 2021. The justices in Washington are set to hear oral arguments in the case on February 8. Monday’s brief, which was submitted on behalf of several other notable lawyers, including conservative attorney George Conway, urgesthe high court to examine the issue through a textualist lens – meaning they would focus specifically on the words of the disputed constitutional provision. “Because Section 3 emerged from the hallowed ground of the Civil War, this Court must accord Section 3 its fair meaning, not a narrow construction,” the brief said. The brief also pushes back on Trump’s argument that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” can only be enforced by Congress after a candidate is elected, with Luttig and the others arguing that enforcement of the provision is instead within the purview of courts. Trump’s argument, the brief said, “would deprive voters of the ability to make a truly informed decision, because they could not know if they were voting for someone who cannot serve.” It continued: “And it would risk chaos as courts litigate whether a newly-inaugurated President is disqualified at the same time the country needs a President to be indisputably occupying the office and making enormously consequential decisions – including as commander-in-chief, appointer of cabinet members, leader of the executive branch, vetoer of bills, etc.”
As expected the U.S. Supreme Court is skeptical of attempts to remove Trump from the ballot via the 14th Amendment. This is not surprising IMO. Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots The Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot
Lol at Kavanaugh. A conviction is not required, oh hallowed one. These chumps want to be literal when they point out "president" is not specifically written in the amendment, but not literal when reading "engaged in", "aided", "comforted", which literally are in there.
Opinion: Congress has already disqualified Trump from the ballot Opinion by Tristan Snell 5 minute read Published 3:57 AM EST, Thu February 8, 2024 CNN legal analyst breaks down Colorado Supreme Court Trump ruling 01:02 - Source: CNN Editor’s Note: Tristan Snell is author of the new book “Taking Down Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump by Someone Who Did it Successfully.” He is a lawyer and legal commentator who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN, and he served as assistant attorney general for New York State, where he led the investigation of, and civil case against, Trump University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. Read more opinion on CNN. CNN — The Supreme Court on Thursday is weighing the question of whether former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from office by engaging in an insurrection in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The constitutional text is clear: Any official who took an oath of office is disqualified if they “have engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump to be ineligible on this basis. The ruling encompassed both the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol itself, which interfered with the certification of the Electoral College vote for president, and the former president’s overall scheme to overturn the 2020 election. The case now comes to the Supreme Court following Trump’s appeal, and it could determine whether Trump appears on the ballot in up to 35 different states where his eligibility is being challenged. There are two factual questions at the core of this case: Was January 6 an insurrection and did Trump “engage” in it? Fortunately, the Supreme Court need not look far for answers to these questions. They can simply look across the street at the Capitol, where majorities of both chambers of Congress already found that January 6 was an insurrection and that Trump not only engaged in it but “incited” it. This may come as a shock. When, one might ask, did Congress ever hold such votes? Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.” This was a finding of fact, by majorities of our elected representatives, after a full public trial in which Trump was able to mount a defense — and it should be deemed persuasive, if not conclusive, in answering the factual questions before the Supreme Court. Indeed, for the more right-wing justices, who are often fond of pontificating that courts should not make policy judgments and should instead defer to legislatures, one would think that such a clear public pronouncement from Congress on Trump’s engagement in insurrection would be a compelling precedent. Related article Opinion: Trump is hoping to delay his trial. The Supreme Court shouldn’t take the bait To be clear, the 14th Amendment does not actually require anyone to have voted to disqualify an insurrectionist, whether that’s a legislature or a jury. It certainly does not require a conviction, as some have tried to argue (and such bastardization of the plain language of a constitutional provision is exactly the opposite of what conservatives normally preach). Legally, the insurrectionist is disqualified the moment he engages in insurrection. Though “innocent until proven guilty” is a familiar standard in criminal law, it shouldn’t apply to disqualifying someone from public office, since holding office is a privilege, not a right. Indeed, the courts in Colorado found Trump engaged in insurrection, and that alone was legally sufficient for Trump to be ruled ineligible there. Yet if we are going to look for some additional fact-based determination on whether Trump engaged in insurrection — especially one that can be applied nationally — Congress has already provided us with one, and the Supreme Court should look no further. The congressional votes regarding Trump should satisfy those who say we should “let the voters decide” rather than applying the Constitution and removing Trump from the ballot; the voters already decided. Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators. Related article Opinion: Trump’s immunity defeat isn’t the setback it seems to be Those majorities already represent the will of the American people. True, it was not enough for impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but it is more than enough for disqualification, where no supermajority is stipulated and thus a simple majority should suffice. If the voters change their minds at some future date, the Constitution also provides a way to restore Trump’s eligibility for office: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment allows for a disqualified official to be rehabilitated by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. Without such an effort by Congress, it makes a mockery of both democracy and the Constitution to allow Trump to run again. If he is legally ineligible, he must not be on the 2024 ballot, or else the Constitution is meaningless. We cannot cherry-pick which provisions of the Constitution we feel like enforcing at any given moment and we cannot ignore provisions of the Constitution merely because they yield difficult or inconvenient outcomes. Therein lies the greatest danger. We must not be fooled by the “let the voters decide” argument. It sounds democratic, but a suspension and circumvention of a clear constitutional provision could be the beginning of the end for our democracy and the rule of law. If any one part of the Constitution is set aside, no part of it is sacred. If we “let the voters decide” Trump’s eligibility, does that mean we should also “let the voters decide” whether journalists should be jailed, as Trump has called for? Should we “let the voters decide” to strip voting rights from other voters they disagree with? A democracy without a constitution and the rule of law will not remain a democracy for long. Instead, we must apply all the laws as written — including the 14th Amendment. Get Our Free Weekly Newsletter Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter Join us on Twitter and Facebook We already possess a clear determination by Congress regarding Trump and January 6, and we must not ignore it. We cannot keep holding more and more votes until Trump finds one that he can win — or overturn successfully. The Supreme Court may be wary of disqualifying Trump based solely on their own ruling as a group of unelected judges. But they do not have to do so. They can ground their ruling in the determination that Congress has already made, thus giving their decision both legal and political legitimacy. The Constitution is clear, Congress’ votes are clear and Trump’s disqualification is thus wholly justified. If some people disagree, they can push for Congress to reinstate Trump as provided by the Constitution. What Congress did, Congress can undo. That is the genius of the 14th Amendment — which the Supreme Court should fully embrace.