Trump is Banking on Delaying His Trials Until After the 2024 Election in Order to Stay Out of Prison. Spoiler Alert: It’s Not Going to Work.

‘America Rises’ Post #28: Saturday, December 23rd, 2023

When Donald Trump’s indictments first began to drop, I made a serious effort to stay on top of all the breaking news that pertained to each and every one of his cases/trials. But it just became too overwhelming to keep up with. The back and forth between Trump’s team and Smith’s team and the various judges overseeing his cases, not to mention appeals, discovery disputes, motions to dismiss, motions to delay, requests for special masters, requests for recusals, gag orders, motions for expedited review, etc. It was simply head-spinning and not where I felt like my time could be best put to use. So I have not revisited Trump’s cases in my newsletter until today.

Now that it’s December 23^rd—just two days before Christmas, three days before Kwanzaa, and eight days until New Year’s (2024)—it seems like a good time to check in on Trump’s various legal woes for some status updates. And there has, as usual, been a frenetic whirlwind of recent activity.

First, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last Tuesday (December 19^th) in a landmark 4-3 decision that Donald Trump was in fact disqualified from appearing on the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America after previously taking an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The court filed a 230+ page ruling, making a brilliant and unassailable case that Trump’s involvement in the events of the January 6^th insurrection at the Capitol—which aimed to subvert the 2020 election results and prevent the peaceful transfer of power—were in fact in violation of Section III of the 14^th Amendment.

This marks the first time that a state Supreme Court has ever barred a prospective candidate from the Presidency on the basis of Section III (often referred to as “the disqualification clause”) in U.S. history. Despite claims of “partisan election interference by Joe Biden’s team,” Colorado’s lawsuit was filed by REPUBLICANS via lawyers for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). And it is just one of several cases across the country that have sought to challenge Trump’s eligibility as a candidate based on the text of Section III.

Trump’s lawyers have attempted to argue that Section III was never intended to apply to the office of the Presidency, as it is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the clause (unlike “Senator or Representative in Congress,” for example). The plaintiff lawyers rejected this interpretation, stating that Section III absolutely applies to the office of the presidency, as it states “or as an officer of the United States” (see highlighted portion below), which the President undoubtedly qualifies as.

Last month, Colorado District judge Sarah Wallace found that “while Trump had engaged in insurrection,” she did not believe that Section III applied to the President (or individual seeking the office of the Presidency). As a result, her ruling in November stipulated that Trump could remain on the primary ballot for the state.

Last Tuesday, however, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that ruling, writing:

“We do not reach [this] conclusion[s] lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the question[s] before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates that we reach.”

The court stayed its ruling until January in order to give Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which he is of course already in the process of doing.

It is not clear how the court will rule on this. As I’ve written before, the Republican Party has captured our Supreme Court and stacked it with a dangerously (and potentially democracy-ending) supermajority of far-right Federalist-Society-endorsed religious extremists who are not bound in any meaningful way by any code of ethics, openly declare themselves unaccountable to Congress or the criminal justice system, and are the antithesis of every quality you’d hope to see in individuals who sit upon our nation’s highest and most powerful court.