For those of you following the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, here’s a seldom discussed bit of historical background. Other than the Civil War, the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution was invoked on another occasion, this time to sanction a socialist Congressman who was a vocal critic of World War One. It’s another example of a relevant historical event that gets studiously ignored due to the need for narrative damage control.
When the United States entered the war and passed the Espionage Act of 1917, Berger’s continued opposition made him a target. He and four other Socialists were indicted under the Espionage Act in February 1918. The trial followed on December 9 of that year, and on February 20, 1919, Berger was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.
Berger’s conviction was appealed and was ultimately overturned by the US Supreme Court on January 31, 1921…
…the voters of Milwaukee once again elected him to the House of Representatives in 1918. When he arrived in Washington to claim his seat, Congress….declared the seat vacant, disqualifying him pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
There’s something “under the table” going on with the Colorado SC invoking the 14th amendment. I haven’t figured out what it is, but it’s more than just 4 overzealous partisan hack judges issuing a fantasy land ruling.
The case, itself, was filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. For reference, they are Left’s answer to Judicial Watch.
Here’s a quote from retired Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri (who doesn’t do a lot of interviews, but found it important to make the rounds commenting on this ruling):
“As somebody who is a politician, I think it’s a real bad decision because I think it really helps Donald Trump and I don’t like anything that helps Donald Trump,” McCaskill said on Thursday’s “Morning Joe.” “I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with Bill Barr in terms of it helping him. I think it does help him.”
That seems….reasonable. It is probably correct, as well. This ruling will likely energize the Trump supporters. So, why do I find it so odd?
Well, Claire McCaskill is one of the most influential people on the Board of Directors of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. Not only does she not mention this in any of her multitude of interviews. She would be in a position (as a retired Senator) to call the shots at that non-profit.
This doesn’t smell right.
Also the court stayed its own ruling. There is definitely something fishy, so it may be a setup for something else that is to come. Since DJT was not found guilty of insurrection, maybe they are waiting for another judgment on some other of the dozen cases against him to produce a result. They are pretty good at scheming these Democrats, at making cases and laws out of whole cloth or entrapping or blackmailing. Maybe they will get a “confession” out of one of the J6 prisonners, or some Republican will turn on him.
Stay tuned.
If I were of the Left and conceding that my candidate (Biden) is likely going to lose, I’d start “kid-proofing” the White House. For example, I’d make it almost impossible to pull out of NATO (which is a red-button issue with Trump). Oh look, a rider was just added to the Pentagon Funding bill that makes it all but impossible to leave (passed 6 days ago).
I’d, also, want to assure that Trump would be a lame duck president for a majority of his time in office. One way to do that would be to wait until he’s in office, then have Jack Smith indict Trump through a manipulated Grand Jury for Insurrection. It would be in the DC court system (which could actually lead to a conviction). And, even if it doesn’t, it gives fuel to the fire for the Left to exclaim that Trump is illegitimate. If they do get a conviction (which isn’t too outlandish in that court system)…then they drag out the appeal process for the entirety of the term while gaslighting the left saying “See, he wouldn’t have been on the ballot in a number of bell weather states.”
By that time, the election would have been certified, so there is no taking back the electoral votes. But, it would guarantee a “lame duck” and “illegitimate” title applied by the Left.
I will find it very interesting if the USSC refuses to put the Colorado ruling on the docket and allows it to fester until it’s useful.
Were they hoping to establish a precedent? Set an example for other Democrat run states to remove Trump from the ballot? Bait the right into violent retribution and thereby legitimize a full crackdown and declare Trump supporters as enemies of the state, and possibly “temporarily” suspending the election?
So many pivotal decisions concerning Trump for the Supreme Court to make that could potentially, effectively, disenfranchise half the country. Is that any easier to stomach than if he were assissinated by the Dems “sword and shield”? Whatever happens, it’s clear that there is no way the Dems will relinquish power and they’ll do absolutely anything to preserve it. As VDH noted, there acting in a lawless manner without regard to hitherto observed boundaries of political conduct.
So the question will be how is this intractable situation resolved? I don’t foresee this being settled amicably or peacefully.
“Bait the right into violent retribution and thereby legitimize a full crackdown and declare Trump supporters as enemies of the state, and possibly “temporarily” suspending the election?”
The huge amount of black-pill, burn-it-all-down blather all over the web all the time leads me to think there’s a concerted psy-op in motion, trying to get all the “right wing crazies” to jump. Justifying the suspension of the Constitution and permanent “emergency” powers.
Same thing Junior tried to do here and the truckers laughed at him. Bouncy castles and inflatable hot tubs for the win.
A precedent? No, but, just playing the Lawfare game.
When SCOTUS rules, their reasons will be scrutinized, and then used as ammunition for their next Lawfare action against Orangeman.
A roadmap, as it were, for what MAY be allowable.
As it is, Bad Orangeman is innocent until PROVEN, in a court of law, to be guilty, of a related crime, OR, Congress (as noted in the headline story) can ‘convict’ as well, according to the amendment.
The CO judges should be held on criminal charges themselves, this wasn’t a mistake, or ignorant, this was on purpose, and is a contravention of existing US laws. Good luck with the DOJ enforcing that now, however, a Trump DOJ might follow up on this…..
Trump would have to do far better than selecting duplicitous quislings like Sessions and Barr. He’d need his administration to be every bit as politically weaponized as O’Bidens in order to purge the traitorous rot. Unfortunately those tactics are made necessary by the lefts abandonment of law. It’s now a zero sum game. The establishment recognizes this and that’s why they cannot permit Trump to succeed under any circumstances.
As I understand Colorado has 9 electoral college votes that all go to the winner. Trump lost to Biden (2020) and to Clinton (2016) both in Colorado. So it seems like this decision wouldn’t change anything … other than rally Trump support elsewhere.
Is this more about the Supreme Court than Trump?
In the face of an avalanche of uncritical leftist media blaring, “Trump removed from ballot!”, the optics of the SC reversing the Colorado verdict will look terrible, regardless of its clear unconstitutionality. But the SC was bold in returning Roe v Wade to states jurisdiction. Maybe the play for the left is using an unfavorable decision as a trigger for unleashing mayhem a la Floyd/BLM in 2020. Add a few million military age male illegals to the mix to spice it up even more and maybe there’ll be enough disruption to bollocks the election.
Two thoughts,
1.) If somehow the ruling stands, and then more States remove Trump from the ballot, and at the same time Red States remove Biden from their states ballot,,, I could see Democrats okay with that. A General election without both Trump & Biden. Biden is gone, and Democrats aren’t seen as being involved.
2.) SCOTUS rules to leave Trump on ballot. Then Dems cry about Trump appointed judges/ argue for their abstention, play to their voters and donors about the unfairness of Trump judges.(throw in abortion too)
I agree Orson, McCaskill is very connected to the heart of the DNC, so is Joe’s wife.
A little known fact. The USA has leveled sanctions on countries that have used similar disqualifying rules against opposition candidates.
Draining Trump’s bank account, and feeding the hoppium of fools like NB Kanuckistan Guy.
If Congress declares Trump is an insurrectionist? Then Colorado could say he is an insurrectionist. EXCEPT The President is not an office that is subject to the ban in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Look at the list carefully. They are ALL local and state level officials. The President is a NATIONAL Official. The folks that wrote the list likely realized that ANY Candidate who can get a majority of the electoral votes for President is a legitimate President, even if they fought for the Confederacy.
Or the opposite? No one from the Confederate States will ever be a successful candidate for president of the United States of America for a long time. It took almost 100 years for Texan LBJ to be elected President and 110 years for Georgian Jimmy Carter.
Who are these people:
Norma Anderson, Michelle Priola, Claudine Cmarada, Krista Kafer, Kathi
Wright, and Christopher Castilian?
who is paying them to conspire to deny rights under color of law?