Following other courts in rejecting attempts to bar the front-runner for president, Donald Trump was granted permission to run for president in 2024 even though his political opponents claim he took part in a “insurrection.” This decision was made on Friday by a judge in Denver.
Judge Sarah B. Wallace of the District Court rules that Trump is not disqualified by the 14th Amendment, which forbids insurrectionists from holding public office, because it does not apply to presidents.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
“To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent,” she penned an order on November 17.
In order to prevent Secretary of State Jena Griswold from approving Trump’s name for the presidential primary ballot on January 5, 2024, the petitioners invoked Section 3 of the Constitution. Griswold stayed impartial regarding Trump’s eligibility, but she asked Wallace to rule on whether or not Trump was disqualified due to his purported involvement in an insurgency.
“The Court determined that Donald Trump is eligible to be placed on the Colorado ballot in the March Presidential Primary. This decision may be appealed. As Secretary of State, I will always ensure that every voter can make their voice heard in free and fair elections,” Griswold stated in a release.
Wallace was given expert testimony on the administration of Section 3 during its initial implementation in 1868 during a recent five-day hearing. It was discovered that, at that time, members of Congress might be barred from taking office for relatively minor infractions like writing a letter opposing the Union or giving $100 to a family member prior to departing to join the Confederacy.
Due to his involvement in the attack on January 6, a local elected official in New Mexico was recently removed from office.
It would have been extremely unusual to disqualify a former president and current contender for the presidency. But recent decisions in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Michigan have all sided with Trump, with judges saying it is not their place to decide whether he is eligible now.
Attorney for President Trump and Republican former Secretary of State Scott Gessler voiced his disbelief at the state of affairs, saying, “We shouldn’t even be here.” Gessler also brought attention to the large number of people in Colorado and across the country who are inspired by Trump’s leadership. He asked why the petitioners were trying to prevent these people from using their right to vote for the President.
ALERT! Major Water Restrictions In Effect!
Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon applauded the decision with pride.
“My incredible partners at @dhillonlaw defeated the challenge to President Trump being on the ballot in yet another state, Colorado!!” she wrote. “I was on the phone moments ago with partner David Warrington when the news came through. Kudos to our team, local counsel and President Trump!!!”
Wallace outruled all other judges in determining Trump’s eligibility for 2024. She questioned whether Trump truly qualifies as a “officer of the United States,” as the 14th Amendment’s framers intended. Wallace was nevertheless unable to disqualify Trump because of a broken link in the chain.
The judge rejected Trump’s attempts to have the findings of the bipartisan congressional committee that looked into the attack on January 6th dismissed. The committee, which consisted of two Republicans and seven Democrats, concluded that Trump was the cause of the uprising. The committee members were biased from the start, according to Trump’s legal team, and their report lacked credibility.
Nonetheless, the 102-page decision sharply condemns Trump’s conduct before the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Wallace came to the conclusion that Trump had, in fact, started a rebellion to obstruct President Joe Biden’s election from being certified.
“Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same,” she described. “He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud. He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.”
This is a personal analysis of the election-related facts for 2020. Donald Trump was entitled, like any other political candidate, to a legal challenge to the election results. Election challenges have also been made in the past by the Democratic Party. It doesn’t matter if Trump had a right to make the same accusations about a “stolen” election that Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
In addition to sparking protracted investigations and campaign surveillance, the Democratic Party’s baseless accusations of election tampering in 2016, purportedly masterminded by a traitor working in tandem with Russia and supported by Hillary Clinton, also caused disturbances during Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests outside the White House emerged as a result of the Democrats’ unrelenting criticism of Donald Trump, forcing the president to take refuge in a nuclear bunker.
It would be unprecedented to hold public officials accountable for everyday political speech that extremists might use to spark riots. Politicians from all parties would have to be disqualified from holding public office if this were a legitimate legal standard. It’s crucial to make clear that this is untrue, though.
The J6 “insurrection” narrative has several significant issues that need to be addressed.
Retired General Kellogg and former Defense Secretary Christopher Miller both testified that Donald Trump had no intention of requesting 10,000 more National Guard soldiers at the Electoral College in order to keep his position of authority.
Why did the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, act in this way and incite political radicals to launch a “insurrection” against the government?
Following the democratic process, President Trump formally announced on January 7th that he would step down from office on January 20th. This announcement followed the certification of the votes. This demonstrates that he didn’t try to illegally extend his employment.
On Friday, newly elected Speaker Mike Johnson took a risk by releasing what he claimed to be the entire set of surveillance tapes from the incident on January 6.
It is now evident why the January 6 committee decided not to release the video.
The widely held misconception that every Trump supporter who went into the capital intended to overturn the election and pose a serious threat to the country is refuted by a number of videos. Recognizing the presence of violent rioters on January 6 is imperative.
The instigators, such as Ray Epps and John Earle Sullivan, were not hiding their plans from the rioters, and the FBI had been keeping an eye on radical organizations prior to January 6—even if it meant violating their constitutional rights. None of the demonstrators in the Capitol building brandished firearms in spite of these facts. As Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump knew that he could not take an advantage of the world’s most powerful military force and hold onto power. As early as March 2020, a Time article implied that Trump would start a riot if he lost the election. Persistent alerts from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, along with requests for more National Guard assistance from President Trump himself, went unanswered.
Even though former Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew that challenges about the states’ elector selection processes would surface, they did nothing to protect the Electoral College. This is the exact procedure that Donald Trump promoted, asking his sincere followers to voice their thoughts in a calm and patriotic manner. It is significant to remember that before his supporters could enter the Capitol after his speech, there had already been disturbances there.
The disparities were so obvious that the videos had to be removed.
Recent incidents that have caused a lot of controversy and worry include the J20 riot during Trump’s inauguration, the George Floyd riots, and the pro-Palestinian riot at the DNC.
The judge’s decision is upheld: the J6 “insurrection” story cannot be used to exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election.
Despicable! Bribem called over half the country violent white supremacists. Way to bring the country together, and he gets a pass because he’s a Dim.