DENVER (AP) — Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.
The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump’s candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote attorney Geoffrey Blue.
Trump also will argue that the clause doesn’t apply to him because “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to one who ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion,’ not one who only ‘instigated’ any action,” Blue wrote.
Riiiiiiiight. And the First Amendment makes me immune from prosecution if I yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.
Hes got us. He said he only instigated the rebellion and all he has to do is sign a sworn affidavit that he instigated it and he is home free. Oh I hope his attorneys stop him from using that guaranteed not guilty loophole he is so close to.
Jan 6th was planned across social media for weeks leading up to that day. Before he spoke there were groups in the street going over last-minute details. There were building supplies and propane tanks found on the streets of The District the night before. Jeffrey Epps, a Fed, is on video trying to rule up support for storming The Capitol the night before.
I know it isn’t fashionable to suggest Trump is anything but the boogeyman, but piling it on him is ignoring a swath of evidence to the contrary that he is directly responsible.
He used the same language literally every politician uses to get elected and build support for their base. That’s what “fighting” is to politicians. Where was your outrage when Chuck Schumer used language suggesting consequences for non-compliance with his wishes?
Your reply to me was hard to parse (so I don’t have a question around it) but what Chuck Schumer quote are you referring to? What did he say?
