The gallows set up by supporters of Donald Trump outside the US Capitol, January 6, 2021 ((Shay Horse/NurPhoto/Getty)
Maine Joins Colorado in Disqualifying Trump From 2024 Presidential Ballot
EA on BBC: Colorado Supreme Court Bars Trump From 2024 Ballot Over “Insurrection”
UPDATE, DEC 30:
I joined GB News on Saturday to further explain the legal and political process around Donald Trump being removed from Republican primaries in Colorado and Maine — but remaining on the ballot in Michigan, Minnesota, and California.
The courts and State governments in all five cases agree that there is substantial evidence of Trump’s involvement in “insurrection”, as he tried to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. They differ on whether State courts and agencies have the authority to remove him from ballots — for now, pending the outcome of felony indictments linked to the insurrection.
ORIGINAL ENTRY, DEC 29: In the wake of Maine’s disqualification of Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot for the Republican Presidential nomination, I joined a series of UK outlets to analyze the ban — following that by the Colorado Supreme Court — over Trump’s insurrection before and during the Capitol Attack on January 6, 2021.
I explain the legal and political processes, likely to culminate in a hearing before the US Supreme Court. I consider the effect on the Republican contest, with Iowa’s January 15 caucuses followed by the primary in Maine’s neighbor New Hampshire on January 23.
And as always, I call on the media and analysts to avoid being led by Trump’s circus of lies and claim of victimhood, instead focusing on the issues — including Trump’s attempt to overthrow the US system — in the most important elections since 1865.
Watch Times Radio
If Nikki Haley runs a strong second in the New Hampshire primary, that could change the media’s narrative of Trump as the “heir apparent” for the Republican nomination.
So what effect will Maine’s decision have next door on voters in New Hampshire?
Listen to BBC Radio Scotland from 1:36.16
The fundamental is not just Donald Trump v. the Republican Party. It is Donald Trump as part of the Republican Party within the US system, because Trump does not recognize the authority of anyone in the party or in the US system limiting his attempt to get back into the White House.
Listen to Monocle Radio from 2:21
I joined Georgina Godwin to discuss the wider issues around the 2024 election.
We are talking about the economy, women’s rights including abortion rights, LGBT rights, immigration, the status of health care, education, climate change.
When you add that one of the candidates is a man who tried to carry out a coup in 2021 to stay in the White House, who is facing 91 felony indictments in four criminal cases, you realize that this is an unprecedented situation.
And you realize the impact on global history when you talk about a moment where, during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that man — Donald Trump — would immediately cut all backing to Ukraine if he became President.
Watch Talk TV
Will Republican voters rally around Trump as the supposed victim, as he likes to portray himself? Or will they see him as increasingly, if not toxic, then detrimental to the party as he faces these legal issues as well as the ballot disqualifications?…
If you want to talk about the “swamp”, the swamp is when you try to overthrow the US system, when you try to overturn an election by fraudulently claiming it was rigged, when you possible incite people to attack the Capitol.
Watch GB News
I think not just Democratic voters but other voters at the end of the day say, “We’ve got really important issues in America.” Donald Trump is sucking all the oxygen out of the room over those issues because the Trump circus is the one where he’s the ringmaster.
Trump files two appeals to Supreme Court on immunity and primary ban:
1. The appeal regarding the insurrection ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/e6242739-cfe1-4afd-a857-0a5a6fc4a928.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2
The appeal focuses on the fact that section 3 does not specifically mention the President but, rather, offers a descending order starting with senators. It also claims that section 5 requires Congress to enact legislation to deal with identifying and excluding insurrectionists. Another argument is that it bars holding office but not running for office.
2. The appeal on immunity is similar to the original one: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584455.0_1.pdf
“The Impeachment Judgment Clause and principles of double jeopardy independently bar this prosecution. The plain text of the Clause, ordinary principles of interpretation, and the decisive weight of historical evidence confirm that a President who was impeached and acquitted is not subject to subsequent prosecution on the same conduct.”
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/01/biden-trump-poll-odds-black-hispanic-young-voters/72072111007/
“A fraying coalition: Black, Hispanic, young voters abandon Biden as election year begins….Biden now claims the support of just 63% of Black voters, a precipitous decline from the 87% he carried in 2020, according to the Roper Center. He trails among Hispanic voters by 5 percentage points, 39%-34%; in 2020 he had swamped Trump among that demographic group 2 to 1, 65%-32%.”
[“Special counsel Jack Smith hits back at Trump’s immunity claims”]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/special-counsel-trump-immunity-claim-b2471381.html
“That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy.”
Bribery is an impeachable act. If convicted, a former president would face criminal prosecution. The argument does not wash.
[Editor’s Note: This is nonsense. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 actually says that impeachment and conviction does *not* give a Government official — including the President — immunity from criminal prosecution and punishment.
There is no statement that a criminal prosecution and punishment for a Government official, let alone a former Government official, must await any impeachment and conviction.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”]
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.]
A reminder that a President must first be impeached and convicted by the trial in the Senate for overtly ** political ** crimes like treason, bribery and insurrection BEFORE the courts can prosecute him: See Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7. This means that former presidents cannot face malicious/vexatious prosecution in the domestic and foreign courts for actions they took in office that some may regard as “crimes”.
The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569
“Enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 seems specifically designed for the Reconstruction Era but may be applicable to modern times as well. Section 3 was for the most part used only for the short period between its ratification and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act. The Amnesty Act removed the disqualification from most Confederates and their sympathizers and was enacted by a two-thirds majority of Congress in accordance with the terms of Section 3.”
Trump Should Not Be Disqualified by an Ambiguous Clause: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/opinion/trump-section-3-14th-amendment.html
“The court should limit the clause to its historically verifiable meaning and scope and let the people make their own decision about our next president.”