Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.
I think this means, they’ll have to prove that Trump specifically intended to overturn the election. You may have noticed the manner in which Trump requests illegal things be done on his behalf. He uses language like “It would be great if… [insert illegal activity xyz].” This is what Michael Cohen is referring to when he says “Trump speaks like a mob boss” (this came up in the GA trial last week).
So the court is basically saying that the prosecution has to prove that Trumps intent was to overturn the election. IANAL, but that’s hard to do considering that we don’t know Trumps mind. This trial may depend substantively on the outcome of the GA trial. I’m not sure how much of a paper record has been left behind to prove intent, although from the outside, its very clear.
Does it have to be paper though? They had a lot of video of him telling them to not let pence do it and they have to fight. They also have witnesses that said they told him to tell the followers to stand down. I think that kind of evidence would be enough, but I’m not a lawyer either.
I mean, I think video evidence is fine. But what specifically did he say? Did he use weasel words? Witnesses are still second hand inference of intent. Good but not as good as Trump saying in his own words, “We need to stop the certification of the election.”
He said Pence needs to stop the election and do the right thing and we need to help him. So yeah, it was directing Pence to do it. He said it explicitly. IMO, again not a lawyer, him directing Pence to change the results is insurrection and whether or not the followers decided to help or not is gravy.
I think you are being presumptive about the specific interpretation of words. You aren’t wrong in the way you or I might use language or draw conclusions, but this will have to be held to a much higher bar. Telling Pence to “Do the right thing” isn’t even close to passing that bar. No one here is defending Trump, but lets be honest with ourselves. This is going to rely on a very narrow interpretation of very specific language.
Best case scenario, this is all rendered moot by the trial going on in GA. Worst case scenario, either mistrial or not guilty in GA, then this one goes to the supreme court, and good fucking luck there.
I think the prosecution would have a far easier time if they went after the evidence in the GA trial. I don’t think they’ll get there off of words Trump made in public. Not even close to enough to prove intent.
He explicitly said to Pence, “Make sure to not certify the election and let the judges handle it.” Although these are still weasel words, they still provide intent.
I think that would. Was that his exact language? Do you have a link? Has Pence testified as much? Were there witnesses or was there documentation (film or audio)?
I searched for that quote and didn’t find anything.
Sure thing. Read the whole thing though, there is more on it where he repeats it.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Look I value our back and forth but I don’t think you will get specific intent from Wallace based on that. Its not even close in my read. I think the prosecution would be far smarter to go after the GA evidence. Its stronger and much clearer about intent. Link here for the text transcript, and audio here. Also, consider that in GA, Meadows, the other major name in that transcript, has flipped.
I just don’t think that the vast majority of trumps words in public are sufficient to show intent. There might be some truth social tweets more recently that do. But the guy really is a pro at managing language like this. He knows how to get away with criminal activity.