Yesterday began what will be remembered as a landmark trial in Denver District court: the civil case to determine whether President Donald Trump is ineligible to hold public office in the US anymore. Six petitioners (four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters) filed a suit naming Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold as the respondent asking that a court decide whether or not January 6, 2021 was an insurrection and, if so, Donald Trump participated in that insurrection. The lawsuit invokes the 14th Amendment’s third section that prohibits anyone who (having previously sworn an oath to the US) participates in rebellion or insurrection against the US from holding an office in the US Government.
Although the suit was filed with the US District Court in Denver, the petitioners were instructed to file it with the local court in Denver. The judge assigned to the case is Sarah Wallace who was appointed to the bench in August of 2022 by Democrat Governor Jared Polis. While she has maintained that she will rule impartially and that she has not formed any opinions about the issues brought by the case, her political contributions suggest otherwise. Clearly, Judge Wallace is not only an avid supporter of Democrats, she is also an avid supporter of Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Attorney General Phil Weiser. It is absurd to think that this jurist is not biased and has not formed an opinion about this case.
Yesterday’s witnesses included a Washington DC Metro Police Officer, a US Capitol Police Officer, and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA). Yes, the same Eric Swalwell who had an extramarital affair with a Chinese spy named Fang Fang while he was a sitting member of the House Intelligence Committee. To describe this proceeding as a show trial or as kangaroo court is an understatement. The witnesses and the petitioners’ attorneys have described January 6, 2021 as mob violence that was unique only to that date and President Trump. They further refer to “the mob” as entirely composed of right-wing extremists influenced or directed by President Trump. No other act of civil disobedience comes close or posed as much of a threat as that group on that day and President Trump is to blame. The irony of Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib leading a mob of pro-Hamas activists to occupy the Canon House Office Building twelve days before this mock-trial began is textbook hypocrisy and seems more like parody than reality.
Today’s witness is a sociologist, Dr. Peter Simi, who is testifying as an expert on right-wing extremists and right-wing extremist language and communications. Evidently, any political speech from the Trump administration is a trigger to right-wing extremists. Who are these right-wing extremists? MAGA Republicans, The Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, III%, et al. Dr. Simi will have us believe that anything President Trump said should be considered as a call to violence to any of these groups. The conjecture and speculation being presented as evidence from an expert witness is appalling. He also testified that the same speech from Democrat politicians does not constitute calls to violence—somehow, this is unique to President Trump because of his “relationship” with right-wing extremists. The Democrats’ desperation to brand President Trump as an enemy of the state and any who support him is on full display here.
Even a casual observer can see that this trial has a predetermined outcome; that this is theater designed to provide top cover and a judicial reason for Jena Griswold to block Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado. While this is horrible to watch, it becomes more so when one considers that this will set a precedent for other courts in other states.
While the attorneys arguing against the petitioners’ case (notably Scott Gesler) are performing valiantly, it is obvious that they are preparing their case for an appeal. Ultimately, this case will (or at least should) go to the US Supreme Court where there might be a glimmer of impartial justice.