Former President Donald Trump’s legal team attacked the January 6 “insurrection” charge in a legal brief recently filed to the Supreme Court asking it to overturn Colorado’s decision to keep him off the ballot.
As Breitbart News reported in December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled “in a 4-3 opinion that the Constitution’s ‘Insurrection Clause’ prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024.”
“The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three” of the Fourteenth Amendment, the ruling reads.
The ruling will partially reverse a previous ruling from Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace, who ruled in November that the Fourteenth Amendment would not apply in the case of former President Trump, being that he is not an officer of the United States as was defined at the time of the amendment’s ratification following the Civil War.
As predicted, the former president’s legal team appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking it to overturn the Colorado ruling. In a legal brief filed in January, Trump’s lawyers asserted that the former president never encouraged his supporters to enter the Capitol on January 6, adding he asked them to peacefully and patriotically let their voices be heard.
“President Trump never told his supporters to enter the Capitol, and he did not lead, direct, or encourage any of the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol either in his speech at the Ellipse or in any of his statements or communications before or during the events of January 6, 2021,” it said.
“President Trump also sent tweets throughout the day instructing his supporters to ‘remain peaceful’ and ‘[s]tay peaceful,’ and he released a video telling the crowd ‘to go home now,'” it added. “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.'”
Trump’s legal team then targeted Professor Peter Simi, who argued that the former president used “coded language” with his supporters prior to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot, which would therefore qualify as “insurrection.”
“This Court should not allow a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency to be determined or in any way affected by testimony from a sociology professor who claims an ability to decipher ‘coded’ messages,” the brief said.
“The fact remains President Trump did not commit or participate in the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol, and this Court cannot tolerate a regime that allows a candidate’s eligibility for office to hinge on a trial court’s assessment of dubious expert-witness testimony or claims that President Trump has powers of telepathy,” it added.
The legal brief further noted that Trump’s words during the lead-up to the riot would have been regarded as “benign” if they had been spoken by any other person, asserting that Colorado wants the courts to “establish a Trump-specific version of the First Amendment because a sociology professor opined that he speaks in ‘coded’ language to his supporters.”
The case is Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Paul Roland Bois directed the award-winning feature film, EXEMPLUM, which can be viewed for FREE on YouTube or Tubi. “Better than Killers of the Flower Moon,” wrote Mark Judge. “You haven’t seen a story like this before,” wrote Christian Toto. A high-quality, ad-free stream can also be purchased on Google Play or Vimeo on Demand. Follow him on Twitter @prolandfilms or Instagram @prolandfilms.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.