Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
What I see when old Donnie is trying to get total immunity while he was president, is that he sees that is the only way he can get out of box he is in. Now the problem that he will have to face is that if he gets total immunity, then the present president should have total immunity as well. Now if Biden has total immunity, then could he have any opposition eliminated, claim immunity because if the courts gives it to old Donnie, then old Donnie may have a target on his back. The court should get it writing that old Donnie wants a target on his back, if they give him immunity.
insurrection
noun [ C or U ]
UK
/ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/ US
/ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/
Add to word list
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
armed insurrection
Were they organized? Armed? Able to take controls of the levers of power or was it just a riot like Antifa on May 29?
May 29- June 6 2020 they attacked the White House. 79 Leos wounded.
How did you miss that?
Voter data expert hired by Trump campaign says 2020 election was not stolen
Ken Block, whom the Trump campaign hired in 2020 to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed Tuesday stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there…
thehill.com
Ken Block, whom the Trump campaign hired in 2020 to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed Tuesday stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.
“Can a steady diet of lies and innuendo overcome the truth?” the USA Today op-ed began. “In November 2020, former President Donald Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump’s allegations and put him back in the White House.”
“I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign,” Block wrote.
Block, who owns Simpatico Software Systems, said his company’s findings were communicated directly to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and transcripts of depositions taken by the Jan. 6 select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol “show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election.”
Well, I'm sure Trump will come back with "I never met him, never knew him, don't know anything about him" etc, etc.
There will be a 'big fight' if Haley added to Trump ticket, Bannon says
Author of the article
ostmedia News
Published Jan 03, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 1 minute read
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon does not want Nikki Haley in any role at the White House if Donald Trump wins November's U.S. presidential election.
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon does not want Nikki Haley in any role at the White House if Donald Trump wins November's U.S. presidential election.
Conservative strategist Steve Bannon is warning the Republican Party there will be a “big fight” if Nikki Haley is chosen as the running mate for former U.S. President Donald Trump.
He also called the former South Carolina governor “a viper” if she becomes vice president in a second Trump administration, which would also anger his diehard supporters.
“Nikki Haley’s biggest donors right now are some of the most radical anti-Trump Democrats,” he said on the “Human Events Daily With Jack Posobiec” podcast recently.
Bannon, a former Trump adviser, explained what might happen in the spring after the presidential campaign ends with Trump’s nomination.
“They’re going to try to force Nikki on the ticket, to say Trump needs a woman, Nikki on the ticket, she balances things,” he said. “And she can bring together that 15% of never-Trumpers in the Republican Party. We’re going to have to have that fight.”
He added if Haley works for Trump in any role, his second administration “will fail.”
“She’s a viper. She’s a viper,” he said. “And once she gets in there, she’ll try to run it as prime minister. She’ll try to be Dick Cheney. Her to Trump will be just like Dick Cheney to (George) Bush. That’s what she’ll try to do.”
Trump leads all other candidates for the Republican presidential nominee by a wide margin, according to recent polls, typically with more than 50% support.
Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are Trump’s closest challengers for the Republican ticket, but they have been polling in the low double digits in recent weeks.
The Republican nominee will face Democratic President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s election.
racetothewh.com
podbean.com
torontosun.com
Author of the article
ostmedia NewsPublished Jan 03, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 1 minute read
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon does not want Nikki Haley in any role at the White House if Donald Trump wins November's U.S. presidential election.
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon does not want Nikki Haley in any role at the White House if Donald Trump wins November's U.S. presidential election.
Conservative strategist Steve Bannon is warning the Republican Party there will be a “big fight” if Nikki Haley is chosen as the running mate for former U.S. President Donald Trump.
He also called the former South Carolina governor “a viper” if she becomes vice president in a second Trump administration, which would also anger his diehard supporters.
“Nikki Haley’s biggest donors right now are some of the most radical anti-Trump Democrats,” he said on the “Human Events Daily With Jack Posobiec” podcast recently.
Bannon, a former Trump adviser, explained what might happen in the spring after the presidential campaign ends with Trump’s nomination.
“They’re going to try to force Nikki on the ticket, to say Trump needs a woman, Nikki on the ticket, she balances things,” he said. “And she can bring together that 15% of never-Trumpers in the Republican Party. We’re going to have to have that fight.”
He added if Haley works for Trump in any role, his second administration “will fail.”
“She’s a viper. She’s a viper,” he said. “And once she gets in there, she’ll try to run it as prime minister. She’ll try to be Dick Cheney. Her to Trump will be just like Dick Cheney to (George) Bush. That’s what she’ll try to do.”
Trump leads all other candidates for the Republican presidential nominee by a wide margin, according to recent polls, typically with more than 50% support.
Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are Trump’s closest challengers for the Republican ticket, but they have been polling in the low double digits in recent weeks.
The Republican nominee will face Democratic President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s election.
2024 Republican Presidential Primary Polling Average — Race to the WH
Track the Latest Polling for the GOP Primary for Every State. Updated Daily. From One of the Most Accurate Forecasters in the Nation in 2022.
racetothewh.com
EPISODE 638: NEW YEARS STRATEGY SESSION WITH STEVE BANNON
Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSOSupport the show
There will be a 'big fight' if Haley added to Trump ticket, Bannon says
Steve Bannon is warning the Republican Party there will be a "big fight" if Nikki Haley is chosen as Donald Trump's running mate.
Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Colorado ruling barring him from ballot over Jan. 6 attack
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Nicholas Riccardi
Published Jan 03, 2024 • 5 minute read
DENVER (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling barring him from the Colorado ballot, setting up a high-stakes showdown over whether a constitutional provision prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection” will end his political career.
Trump appealed a 4-3 ruling in December by the Colorado Supreme Court that marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot. The court found that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualified him under the clause.
The provision has been used so sparingly in American history that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
Wednesday’s development came a day after Trump’s legal team filed an appeal against a ruling by Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states. He lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and does not need to win the state to gain either the Republican presidential nomination or the presidency. But the Colorado ruling has the potential to prompt courts or secretaries of state to remove him from the ballot in other, must-win states.
None had succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all appointed by Democratic governors — ruled last month against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a judicial process.
“The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their appeal to the nation’s highest court, noting that Maine has already followed Colorado’s lead.
Trump’s new appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also follows one from Colorado’s Republican Party. Legal observers expect the high court will take the case because it concerns unsettled constitutional issues that go to the heart of the way the country is governed.
All the parties to the case have urged the court to move quickly. Trump’s lawyers on Wednesday asked the court to overturn the ruling without even hearing oral arguments. The lawyers representing the Colorado plaintiffs have urged oral arguments but also seek a vastly accelerated schedule, calling for a resolution by next month. Colorado’s primary is March 5.
Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump in Colorado, said late last month on a legal podcast called “Law, disrupted” that he hopes the nation’s highest court hurries once it accepts the case, as he expects it will.
“We have a primary coming up on Super Tuesday and we need to know the answer,” Grimsley said.
The Colorado high court upheld a finding by a district court judge that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” incited by Trump. It agreed with the petitioners, six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters whose lawsuit was funded by a Washington-based liberal group, that Trump clearly violated the provision. Because of that, the court ruled he is disqualified just as plainly as if he failed to meet the Constitution’s minimum age requirement for the presidency of 35 years.
In doing so, the state high court reversed a ruling by the lower court judge that said it wasn’t clear that Section 3 was meant to apply to the president. That’s one of many issues the nation’s highest court would consider.
Additional ones include whether states such as Colorado can determine who is covered by Section 3, whether congressional action is needed to create a process to bar people from office, whether Jan. 6 met the legal definition of insurrection and whether Trump was simply engaging in First Amendment activity that day or is responsible for the violent attack, which was intended to halt certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. Trump held a rally before the Capitol attack, telling his supporters that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Six of the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices were appointed by Republicans, and three by Trump himself.
The Colorado ruling cited a prior decision by Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s appointees to the high court, when he was a federal judge in Colorado. That ruling determined that the state had a legitimate interest in removing from the presidential ballot a naturalized U.S. citizen who was ineligible for the office because he was born in Guyana.
Section 3, however, has barely been used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions. The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.
Legal scholars believe its only application in the 20th century was being cited by Congress in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and was elected to the House of Representatives.
But in 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Liberal groups sued to block Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection because of their roles on that day. Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.
Some conservatives warn that, if Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways.
Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.
And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Nicholas Riccardi
Published Jan 03, 2024 • 5 minute read
DENVER (AP) — Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling barring him from the Colorado ballot, setting up a high-stakes showdown over whether a constitutional provision prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection” will end his political career.
Trump appealed a 4-3 ruling in December by the Colorado Supreme Court that marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot. The court found that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualified him under the clause.
The provision has been used so sparingly in American history that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
Wednesday’s development came a day after Trump’s legal team filed an appeal against a ruling by Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states. He lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and does not need to win the state to gain either the Republican presidential nomination or the presidency. But the Colorado ruling has the potential to prompt courts or secretaries of state to remove him from the ballot in other, must-win states.
None had succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all appointed by Democratic governors — ruled last month against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a judicial process.
“The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their appeal to the nation’s highest court, noting that Maine has already followed Colorado’s lead.
Trump’s new appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also follows one from Colorado’s Republican Party. Legal observers expect the high court will take the case because it concerns unsettled constitutional issues that go to the heart of the way the country is governed.
All the parties to the case have urged the court to move quickly. Trump’s lawyers on Wednesday asked the court to overturn the ruling without even hearing oral arguments. The lawyers representing the Colorado plaintiffs have urged oral arguments but also seek a vastly accelerated schedule, calling for a resolution by next month. Colorado’s primary is March 5.
Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump in Colorado, said late last month on a legal podcast called “Law, disrupted” that he hopes the nation’s highest court hurries once it accepts the case, as he expects it will.
“We have a primary coming up on Super Tuesday and we need to know the answer,” Grimsley said.
The Colorado high court upheld a finding by a district court judge that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” incited by Trump. It agreed with the petitioners, six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters whose lawsuit was funded by a Washington-based liberal group, that Trump clearly violated the provision. Because of that, the court ruled he is disqualified just as plainly as if he failed to meet the Constitution’s minimum age requirement for the presidency of 35 years.
In doing so, the state high court reversed a ruling by the lower court judge that said it wasn’t clear that Section 3 was meant to apply to the president. That’s one of many issues the nation’s highest court would consider.
Additional ones include whether states such as Colorado can determine who is covered by Section 3, whether congressional action is needed to create a process to bar people from office, whether Jan. 6 met the legal definition of insurrection and whether Trump was simply engaging in First Amendment activity that day or is responsible for the violent attack, which was intended to halt certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. Trump held a rally before the Capitol attack, telling his supporters that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Six of the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices were appointed by Republicans, and three by Trump himself.
The Colorado ruling cited a prior decision by Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s appointees to the high court, when he was a federal judge in Colorado. That ruling determined that the state had a legitimate interest in removing from the presidential ballot a naturalized U.S. citizen who was ineligible for the office because he was born in Guyana.
Section 3, however, has barely been used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions. The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.
Legal scholars believe its only application in the 20th century was being cited by Congress in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and was elected to the House of Representatives.
But in 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Liberal groups sued to block Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection because of their roles on that day. Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.
Some conservatives warn that, if Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways.
Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.
And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.
Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Colorado ruling barring him from ballot over Jan. 6 attack
The provision has been used so sparingly in American history that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi
Published Jan 05, 2024 • 4 minute read
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up a case from Colorado stemming from Trump’s role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
Colorado’s Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled last month that Trump should not be on the Republican primary ballot. The decision was the first time the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.
Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, though they have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits, as well as his efforts to keep documents related to Jan. 6 and his tax returns from being turned over to congressional committees.
At the same time, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
Some Democratic lawmakers have called on another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, to step aside from the case because of his wife’s support for Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas is unlikely to agree. He has recused himself from only one other case related to the 2020 election, involving former law clerk John Eastman, and so far the people trying to disqualify Trump haven’t asked him to recuse.
The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state. That Gorsuch decision upheld Colorado’s move to strike a naturalized citizen from the state’s presidential ballot because he was born in Guyana and didn’t meet the constitutional requirements to run for office. The court found that Trump likewise doesn’t meet the qualifications due to his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. That day, the Republican president had held a rally outside the White House and exhorted his supporters to “fight like hell” before they walked to the Capitol.
The two-sentence provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it is no longer eligible for state or federal office. After Congress passed an amnesty for most of the former confederates the measure targeted in 1872, the provision fell into disuse until dozens of suits were filed to keep Trump off the ballot this year. Only the one in Colorado was successful.
Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments. “The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
They argue that Trump should win on many grounds, including that the events of Jan. 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Even if it did, they wrote, Trump himself had not engaged in insurrection. They also contend that the insurrection clause does not apply to the president and that Congress must act, not individual states.
Critics of the former president who sued in Colorado agreed that the justices should step in now and resolve the issue, as do many election law experts.
“This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further. The Court should resolve this case on an expedited timetable, so that voters in Colorado and elsewhere will know whether Trump is indeed constitutionally ineligible when they cast their primary ballots,” lawyers for the Colorado plaintiffs told the Supreme Court.
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.
And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.
— Riccardi reported from Denver.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi
Published Jan 05, 2024 • 4 minute read
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up a case from Colorado stemming from Trump’s role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
Colorado’s Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled last month that Trump should not be on the Republican primary ballot. The decision was the first time the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.
Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, though they have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits, as well as his efforts to keep documents related to Jan. 6 and his tax returns from being turned over to congressional committees.
At the same time, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
Some Democratic lawmakers have called on another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, to step aside from the case because of his wife’s support for Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas is unlikely to agree. He has recused himself from only one other case related to the 2020 election, involving former law clerk John Eastman, and so far the people trying to disqualify Trump haven’t asked him to recuse.
The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state. That Gorsuch decision upheld Colorado’s move to strike a naturalized citizen from the state’s presidential ballot because he was born in Guyana and didn’t meet the constitutional requirements to run for office. The court found that Trump likewise doesn’t meet the qualifications due to his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. That day, the Republican president had held a rally outside the White House and exhorted his supporters to “fight like hell” before they walked to the Capitol.
The two-sentence provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it is no longer eligible for state or federal office. After Congress passed an amnesty for most of the former confederates the measure targeted in 1872, the provision fell into disuse until dozens of suits were filed to keep Trump off the ballot this year. Only the one in Colorado was successful.
Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments. “The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
They argue that Trump should win on many grounds, including that the events of Jan. 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Even if it did, they wrote, Trump himself had not engaged in insurrection. They also contend that the insurrection clause does not apply to the president and that Congress must act, not individual states.
Critics of the former president who sued in Colorado agreed that the justices should step in now and resolve the issue, as do many election law experts.
“This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further. The Court should resolve this case on an expedited timetable, so that voters in Colorado and elsewhere will know whether Trump is indeed constitutionally ineligible when they cast their primary ballots,” lawyers for the Colorado plaintiffs told the Supreme Court.
The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.
And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.
— Riccardi reported from Denver.
The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
The Supreme Court said it will decide whether Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his election loss.
N.Y. seeks $370 million in penalties in Trump’s civil fraud trial. His response: ’They should pay me’
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz
Published Jan 05, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
NEW YORK — New York state lawyers increased their request for penalties to over $370 million Friday in Donald Trump’s civil business fraud trial. He retorted, “They should pay me.”
The exchange came as lawyers for both sides filed papers highlighting their takeaways from the trial in court filings ahead of closing arguments, set for next Thursday. Trump is expected to attend, though plans could change.
It will be the final chance for state and defense lawyers to make their cases. The civil lawsuit, which accuses the leading Republican presidential hopeful of deceiving banks and insurers by vastly inflating his net worth, is consequential for him even while he fights four criminal cases in various courts.
The New York civil case could end up barring him from doing business in the state where he built his real estate empire. On top of that, state Attorney General Letitia James is seeking the $370 million penalty, plus interest — up from a pretrial figure of $250 million, nudged to over $300 million during the proceeding.
The state says the new sum reflects windfalls from wrongdoing, chiefly $199 million in profits from property sales and $169 million in savings on interest rates, as calculated by an investment banking expert hired by James’ office.
Trump bristled at the proposed penalty, calling it “a disgrace” at a campaign stop in Sioux Center, Iowa.
“There was no victim. There was no default. There was no damages. No nothing,” he said. In an all-caps post hours earlier on his Truth Social platform, he complained that the attorney general was seeking $370 million and instead “should pay me,” asserting that businesses are fleeing New York.
(According to the state Labor Department, the number of private sector jobs in New York increased 1% in the year that ended this past November, compared to 1.6% nationally.)
James’ office argued in a filing Friday that Trump, his company and executives clearly intended to defraud people.
“The myriad deceptive schemes they employed to inflate asset values and conceal facts were so outrageous that they belie innocent explanation,” state lawyer Kevin Wallace wrote.
The state alleges Trump and his company ginned up exorbitant values for golf courses, hotels, and more, including Trump’s former home in his namesake tower in New York and his current home at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. The numbers were listed on personal financial statements that netted him attractive rates on loans and insurance, leaving him money to invest in other projects and even his 2016 presidential campaign, James’ office says.
The defendants, including Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric, deny any wrongdoing. The former president has painted the case as a political maneuver by James, Judge Arthur Engoron and other Democrats, saying they’re abusing the legal system to try to cut off his chances of winning back the White House this year.
He asserts that his financial statements actually came in billions of dollars low, and that any overestimations — such as valuing his Trump Tower penthouse at nearly three times its actual size — were mere mistakes and made no difference in the overall picture of his fortune.
He also says the documents are essentially legally bulletproof because they said the numbers weren’t audited, among other caveats. Recipients understood them as simply starting points for their own analyses, the defense says.
None of Trump’s lenders testified that they wouldn’t have made the loans or would have charged more interest if his financial statements had shown different numbers, and 10-plus weeks of testimony produced “no factual evidence from any witness that the gains were ill-gotten,” attorneys Michael Madaio and Christopher Kise wrote in a filing Friday. Nor, they said, was there proof that insurers were ripped off.
Separately, defense lawyers argued that claims against Executive Vice Presidents Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. should be dismissed because they never had “anything more than a peripheral knowledge or involvement in the creation, preparation, or use of” their father’s financial statements.
The sons relied on the work of other Trump Organization executives and an outside accounting firm that prepared those documents, attorneys Clifford Robert and Michael Farina said, echoing the scions’ own testimony.
Their father also took the stand, disputing the allegations, decrying the case as political and criticizing the judge and the attorney general. James’ office argued in its filing Friday that Trump was “not a credible witness.”
“He was evasive, gave irrelevant speeches and was incapable of answering questions in a direct and credible manner,” Wallace wrote.
The verdict is up to the judge because James brought the case under a state law that doesn’t allow for a jury. Engoron has said he hopes to decide by the end of this month.
He will weigh claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. But he ruled before trial on the lawsuit’s top claim, finding that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud for years. With that ruling, the judge ordered that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president’s properties, but an appeals court has frozen that order for now.
During the trial, Engoron fined Trump a total of $15,000 after finding that he violated a gag order. The order, imposed after Trump maligned a law clerk, barred all trial participants from commenting publicly on the judge’s staff.
Trump’s lawyers are appealing the gag order.
— Associated Press writers Michael R. Sisak and Jill Colvin contributed.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz
Published Jan 05, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
NEW YORK — New York state lawyers increased their request for penalties to over $370 million Friday in Donald Trump’s civil business fraud trial. He retorted, “They should pay me.”
The exchange came as lawyers for both sides filed papers highlighting their takeaways from the trial in court filings ahead of closing arguments, set for next Thursday. Trump is expected to attend, though plans could change.
It will be the final chance for state and defense lawyers to make their cases. The civil lawsuit, which accuses the leading Republican presidential hopeful of deceiving banks and insurers by vastly inflating his net worth, is consequential for him even while he fights four criminal cases in various courts.
The New York civil case could end up barring him from doing business in the state where he built his real estate empire. On top of that, state Attorney General Letitia James is seeking the $370 million penalty, plus interest — up from a pretrial figure of $250 million, nudged to over $300 million during the proceeding.
The state says the new sum reflects windfalls from wrongdoing, chiefly $199 million in profits from property sales and $169 million in savings on interest rates, as calculated by an investment banking expert hired by James’ office.
Trump bristled at the proposed penalty, calling it “a disgrace” at a campaign stop in Sioux Center, Iowa.
“There was no victim. There was no default. There was no damages. No nothing,” he said. In an all-caps post hours earlier on his Truth Social platform, he complained that the attorney general was seeking $370 million and instead “should pay me,” asserting that businesses are fleeing New York.
(According to the state Labor Department, the number of private sector jobs in New York increased 1% in the year that ended this past November, compared to 1.6% nationally.)
James’ office argued in a filing Friday that Trump, his company and executives clearly intended to defraud people.
“The myriad deceptive schemes they employed to inflate asset values and conceal facts were so outrageous that they belie innocent explanation,” state lawyer Kevin Wallace wrote.
The state alleges Trump and his company ginned up exorbitant values for golf courses, hotels, and more, including Trump’s former home in his namesake tower in New York and his current home at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. The numbers were listed on personal financial statements that netted him attractive rates on loans and insurance, leaving him money to invest in other projects and even his 2016 presidential campaign, James’ office says.
The defendants, including Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric, deny any wrongdoing. The former president has painted the case as a political maneuver by James, Judge Arthur Engoron and other Democrats, saying they’re abusing the legal system to try to cut off his chances of winning back the White House this year.
He asserts that his financial statements actually came in billions of dollars low, and that any overestimations — such as valuing his Trump Tower penthouse at nearly three times its actual size — were mere mistakes and made no difference in the overall picture of his fortune.
He also says the documents are essentially legally bulletproof because they said the numbers weren’t audited, among other caveats. Recipients understood them as simply starting points for their own analyses, the defense says.
None of Trump’s lenders testified that they wouldn’t have made the loans or would have charged more interest if his financial statements had shown different numbers, and 10-plus weeks of testimony produced “no factual evidence from any witness that the gains were ill-gotten,” attorneys Michael Madaio and Christopher Kise wrote in a filing Friday. Nor, they said, was there proof that insurers were ripped off.
Separately, defense lawyers argued that claims against Executive Vice Presidents Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. should be dismissed because they never had “anything more than a peripheral knowledge or involvement in the creation, preparation, or use of” their father’s financial statements.
The sons relied on the work of other Trump Organization executives and an outside accounting firm that prepared those documents, attorneys Clifford Robert and Michael Farina said, echoing the scions’ own testimony.
Their father also took the stand, disputing the allegations, decrying the case as political and criticizing the judge and the attorney general. James’ office argued in its filing Friday that Trump was “not a credible witness.”
“He was evasive, gave irrelevant speeches and was incapable of answering questions in a direct and credible manner,” Wallace wrote.
The verdict is up to the judge because James brought the case under a state law that doesn’t allow for a jury. Engoron has said he hopes to decide by the end of this month.
He will weigh claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. But he ruled before trial on the lawsuit’s top claim, finding that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud for years. With that ruling, the judge ordered that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president’s properties, but an appeals court has frozen that order for now.
During the trial, Engoron fined Trump a total of $15,000 after finding that he violated a gag order. The order, imposed after Trump maligned a law clerk, barred all trial participants from commenting publicly on the judge’s staff.
Trump’s lawyers are appealing the gag order.
— Associated Press writers Michael R. Sisak and Jill Colvin contributed.
N.Y. seeks $370 million in penalties in Trump’s civil fraud trial. His response: ’They should pay me’
New York state lawyers increased their request for penalties to over $370 million Friday in Donald Trump's civil business fraud trial.
Trump downplays Jan. 6 on anniversary of Capitol siege, calls jailed rioters 'hostages'
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michelle L. Price, Jill Colvin And Thomas Beaumont
Published Jan 06, 2024 • Last updated 19 hours ago • 4 minute read
NEWTON, Iowa — Former President Donald Trump, campaigning in Iowa Saturday, marked the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by casting the migrant surge on the southern border as the “real” insurrection.
Just over a week before the Republican nomination process begins with Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, Trump did not explicitly acknowledge the date at his first events. But he continued to claim that countries have been emptying jails and mental institutions to fuel a record number of migrant crossings, even though there is no evidence that that is the case.
“When you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing, that’s the real deal. That’s the real deal. Not patriotically and peacefully — peacefully and patriotically,” Trump said, quoting from his speech on Jan. 6, before a violent mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol as part of a desperate bid to keep him in power after his 2020 election loss.
Trump’s remarks in Newton in central Iowa came a day after Biden delivered a speech near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where he cast Trump as a grave threat to democracy and called Jan. 6 a day when “we nearly lost America — lost it all.”
With a likely rematch of the 2020 election looming, both Biden and Trump have frequently invoked Jan. 6 on the campaign trail. Trump, who is under federal indictment for his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, has consistently downplayed or spread conspiracy theories about a riot in which his supporters — spurred by his lies about election fraud — tried to disrupt the certification of Biden’s win.
Trump also continued to bemoan the treatment of those who have been jailed for participating in the riot, again labeling them “hostages.” More than 1,230 people have been charged with federal crimes connected to the violence, including assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy.
“They ought to release the J6 hostages. They’ve suffered enough,” he said in Clinton, in the state’s far east. “Release the J6 hostages, Joe. Release ’em, Joe. You can do it real easy, Joe,” he said.
Trump was holding the commit-to-caucus events just over a week before voting will begin on Jan. 15. He arrived at his last event nearly three-and-a-half hours late due to what he said was a mechanical issue with a rented plane.
After Trump spoke in Newton, he signed hats and other items people in the crowd passed to him, including a copy of a Playboy magazine that featured him on the cover.
One man in the crowd, Dick Green, was standing about 15 feet away, weeping after the former president autographed his white “Trump Country” hat and shook his hand.
“It’ll never get sold. It will be in my family,” Green said of the hat.
A caucus captain and a pastor in Brighton, Iowa, Green said he had prayed for four years to meet Trump.
“I’ll never forget it,” he said. “It’s just the beginning of his next presidency.”
Trump spent much of the day assailing Biden, casting him as incompetent and the real threat to democracy. But he also attacked fellow Republicans, including the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose “no” vote derailed GOP efforts to repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
“John McCain, for some reason, couldn’t get his arm up that day,” said Trump of McCain, who was shot down over Vietnam in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war. The injuries he suffered left him unable to lift his arms over his head for the rest of his life.
Earlier Saturday, Trump courted young conservative activists in Des Moines, speaking to members of Run GenZ, an organization that encourages young conservatives to run for office. Many in the audience at the Embassy Suites hotel in Des Moines seemed surprised to see Trump, whose visit had not been previously announced.
Trump’s campaign is hoping to turn out thousands of supporters who have never caucused before as part of a show of force aimed at denying his rivals momentum and demonstrating his organizing prowess heading into the general election.
His chief rivals, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, were also campaigning in the state as they battle for second place in hopes of emerging as the most viable alternative to Trump, who is leading by wide margins in early state and national polls.
Trump has used the trip to step up his attacks against Haley, who has been gaining ground. He again cast her Saturday as insufficiently conservative and a “globalist’ beholden to Wall Street donors, and accused her of being disloyal for running against him.
“Nikki will sell you out just like she sold me out,” he charged.
On Friday night, Trump highlighted several recent Haley statements that drew criticism, including her comment that voters in New Hampshire correct Iowa’s mistakes (“You don’t have to be corrected,” he said) and her failure to mention slavery when asked what had caused the Civil War.
“I don’t know if it’s going to have an impact, but you know like … slavery’s sort of the obvious answer as opposed to her three paragraphs of bulls—,” he told a crowd Friday.
In Newton, he said that he was fascinated by the “horrible” war, which he suggested he could have prevented.
“It’s so fascinating,” he said. “It’s just different. I just find it… I’m so attracted to seeing it… So many mistakes were made. See that was something I think could have been negotiated, to be honest with you.”
Haley’s campaign has pointed to his escalating attention, including a new attack ad, as evidence Trump is worried about her momentum.
“God bless President Trump, he’s been on a temper tantrum every day about me … and everything he’s saying is not true,” Haley told a crowd Saturday in North Liberty, Iowa.
— Beaumont reported from Clinton, Iowa, and Colvin from New York. AP National Politics Writer Steve Peoples in North Liberty, Iowa, and Andrew Harnik in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michelle L. Price, Jill Colvin And Thomas Beaumont
Published Jan 06, 2024 • Last updated 19 hours ago • 4 minute read
NEWTON, Iowa — Former President Donald Trump, campaigning in Iowa Saturday, marked the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by casting the migrant surge on the southern border as the “real” insurrection.
Just over a week before the Republican nomination process begins with Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, Trump did not explicitly acknowledge the date at his first events. But he continued to claim that countries have been emptying jails and mental institutions to fuel a record number of migrant crossings, even though there is no evidence that that is the case.
“When you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing, that’s the real deal. That’s the real deal. Not patriotically and peacefully — peacefully and patriotically,” Trump said, quoting from his speech on Jan. 6, before a violent mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol as part of a desperate bid to keep him in power after his 2020 election loss.
Trump’s remarks in Newton in central Iowa came a day after Biden delivered a speech near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where he cast Trump as a grave threat to democracy and called Jan. 6 a day when “we nearly lost America — lost it all.”
With a likely rematch of the 2020 election looming, both Biden and Trump have frequently invoked Jan. 6 on the campaign trail. Trump, who is under federal indictment for his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, has consistently downplayed or spread conspiracy theories about a riot in which his supporters — spurred by his lies about election fraud — tried to disrupt the certification of Biden’s win.
Trump also continued to bemoan the treatment of those who have been jailed for participating in the riot, again labeling them “hostages.” More than 1,230 people have been charged with federal crimes connected to the violence, including assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy.
“They ought to release the J6 hostages. They’ve suffered enough,” he said in Clinton, in the state’s far east. “Release the J6 hostages, Joe. Release ’em, Joe. You can do it real easy, Joe,” he said.
Trump was holding the commit-to-caucus events just over a week before voting will begin on Jan. 15. He arrived at his last event nearly three-and-a-half hours late due to what he said was a mechanical issue with a rented plane.
After Trump spoke in Newton, he signed hats and other items people in the crowd passed to him, including a copy of a Playboy magazine that featured him on the cover.
One man in the crowd, Dick Green, was standing about 15 feet away, weeping after the former president autographed his white “Trump Country” hat and shook his hand.
“It’ll never get sold. It will be in my family,” Green said of the hat.
A caucus captain and a pastor in Brighton, Iowa, Green said he had prayed for four years to meet Trump.
“I’ll never forget it,” he said. “It’s just the beginning of his next presidency.”
Trump spent much of the day assailing Biden, casting him as incompetent and the real threat to democracy. But he also attacked fellow Republicans, including the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose “no” vote derailed GOP efforts to repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
“John McCain, for some reason, couldn’t get his arm up that day,” said Trump of McCain, who was shot down over Vietnam in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war. The injuries he suffered left him unable to lift his arms over his head for the rest of his life.
Earlier Saturday, Trump courted young conservative activists in Des Moines, speaking to members of Run GenZ, an organization that encourages young conservatives to run for office. Many in the audience at the Embassy Suites hotel in Des Moines seemed surprised to see Trump, whose visit had not been previously announced.
Trump’s campaign is hoping to turn out thousands of supporters who have never caucused before as part of a show of force aimed at denying his rivals momentum and demonstrating his organizing prowess heading into the general election.
His chief rivals, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, were also campaigning in the state as they battle for second place in hopes of emerging as the most viable alternative to Trump, who is leading by wide margins in early state and national polls.
Trump has used the trip to step up his attacks against Haley, who has been gaining ground. He again cast her Saturday as insufficiently conservative and a “globalist’ beholden to Wall Street donors, and accused her of being disloyal for running against him.
“Nikki will sell you out just like she sold me out,” he charged.
On Friday night, Trump highlighted several recent Haley statements that drew criticism, including her comment that voters in New Hampshire correct Iowa’s mistakes (“You don’t have to be corrected,” he said) and her failure to mention slavery when asked what had caused the Civil War.
“I don’t know if it’s going to have an impact, but you know like … slavery’s sort of the obvious answer as opposed to her three paragraphs of bulls—,” he told a crowd Friday.
In Newton, he said that he was fascinated by the “horrible” war, which he suggested he could have prevented.
“It’s so fascinating,” he said. “It’s just different. I just find it… I’m so attracted to seeing it… So many mistakes were made. See that was something I think could have been negotiated, to be honest with you.”
Haley’s campaign has pointed to his escalating attention, including a new attack ad, as evidence Trump is worried about her momentum.
“God bless President Trump, he’s been on a temper tantrum every day about me … and everything he’s saying is not true,” Haley told a crowd Saturday in North Liberty, Iowa.
— Beaumont reported from Clinton, Iowa, and Colvin from New York. AP National Politics Writer Steve Peoples in North Liberty, Iowa, and Andrew Harnik in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.
Trump downplays Jan. 6 on anniversary of Capitol siege, calls jailed rioters 'hostages'
Donald Trump marked the third anniversary of Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol assault by casting migrant surge on southern border as real insurrection.
Family of Ashli Babbitt, slain during Jan. 6 riot, sues U.S. government
Author of the article:Washington Post
Washington Post
Steve Thompson, The Washington Post
Published Jan 06, 2024 • 3 minute read
The family of a woman who was fatally shot by a police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has sued the U.S. government, alleging wrongful death, assault and negligence.
Ashli Babbitt, 35, of California, was among a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol trying to disrupt congressional certification of President Biden’s election victory. She was fatally shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she raised herself into the opening of a broken glass door panel deep inside the building. The panel had been dislodged by members of the mob who were trying to get through.
The lawsuit, which seeks $30 million, was brought by her husband Aaron Babbitt, who is executor of his wife’s estate. He and the estate are represented by lawyers for the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, who filed the case in a U.S. District Court in California on Friday, the eve of the anniversary of the insurrection.
“Ashli did not go to Washington as part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose,” the lawsuit says. “She was there to exercise what she believed were her God-given, American liberties and freedoms.”
The suit alleges that the officer, Lt. Michael Byrd, used excessive force.
“The only homicide on January 6 was the unlawful shooting death of Ashli Babbitt,” said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, in a statement posted to the group’s website. “Her homicide by Lt. Byrd is a scandal beyond belief. This historic lawsuit seeks a measure of justice and government accountability for Ashli’s wrongful death.”
Federal prosecutors have concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated. Authorities have said it was reasonable for Byrd to believe he was firing in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress, their aides and others.
A probe by Capitol Police also cleared Byrd’s use of force. The department has said that the officer’s actions were within policy, which allows deadly force when an officer reasonably believes they are protecting themselves or others from serious physical harm.
Capitol Police spokespeople and a lawyer for Byrd did not immediately return requests for comment Saturday. The lawyer, Mark E. Schamel, has said in a previous statement that Byrd’s actions were “nothing short of heroic.”
“He stopped the final surge of rioters that were mere steps from members of Congress,” Schamel said. “It is not hard to imagine the impact on our democracy had these rioters been able to reach their intended targets: sitting members of Congress.”
Capitol Police previously said in a news release that Byrd’s actions “potentially saved members [of Congress] and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters.”
Babbitt was one of five people who authorities said died as a result of the siege, including Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who collapsed after being assaulted by rioters and died Jan. 7.
Babbitt’s death became one of the defining moments of the riot after graphic videos of the shooting disseminated widely. Federal prosecutors, in closing the 2021 investigation that determined the shooting was justified, acknowledged “the tragic loss of life” and offered condolences to her family.
Among members of the far right, Babbitt’s death has inspired vigils, rallies, rap lyrics and social media hashtags. Many view her as a martyr.
A Kentucky man, Chad Barrett Jones, one of those smashing windows to the House Speaker’s Lobby before Babbitt began climbing through one, was convicted in July of two felonies and seven misdemeanours, including obstruction of an official proceeding and destruction of government property.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Washington Post
Washington Post
Steve Thompson, The Washington Post
Published Jan 06, 2024 • 3 minute read
The family of a woman who was fatally shot by a police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has sued the U.S. government, alleging wrongful death, assault and negligence.
Ashli Babbitt, 35, of California, was among a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol trying to disrupt congressional certification of President Biden’s election victory. She was fatally shot by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she raised herself into the opening of a broken glass door panel deep inside the building. The panel had been dislodged by members of the mob who were trying to get through.
The lawsuit, which seeks $30 million, was brought by her husband Aaron Babbitt, who is executor of his wife’s estate. He and the estate are represented by lawyers for the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, who filed the case in a U.S. District Court in California on Friday, the eve of the anniversary of the insurrection.
“Ashli did not go to Washington as part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose,” the lawsuit says. “She was there to exercise what she believed were her God-given, American liberties and freedoms.”
The suit alleges that the officer, Lt. Michael Byrd, used excessive force.
“The only homicide on January 6 was the unlawful shooting death of Ashli Babbitt,” said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, in a statement posted to the group’s website. “Her homicide by Lt. Byrd is a scandal beyond belief. This historic lawsuit seeks a measure of justice and government accountability for Ashli’s wrongful death.”
Federal prosecutors have concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated. Authorities have said it was reasonable for Byrd to believe he was firing in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress, their aides and others.
A probe by Capitol Police also cleared Byrd’s use of force. The department has said that the officer’s actions were within policy, which allows deadly force when an officer reasonably believes they are protecting themselves or others from serious physical harm.
Capitol Police spokespeople and a lawyer for Byrd did not immediately return requests for comment Saturday. The lawyer, Mark E. Schamel, has said in a previous statement that Byrd’s actions were “nothing short of heroic.”
“He stopped the final surge of rioters that were mere steps from members of Congress,” Schamel said. “It is not hard to imagine the impact on our democracy had these rioters been able to reach their intended targets: sitting members of Congress.”
Capitol Police previously said in a news release that Byrd’s actions “potentially saved members [of Congress] and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters.”
Babbitt was one of five people who authorities said died as a result of the siege, including Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who collapsed after being assaulted by rioters and died Jan. 7.
Babbitt’s death became one of the defining moments of the riot after graphic videos of the shooting disseminated widely. Federal prosecutors, in closing the 2021 investigation that determined the shooting was justified, acknowledged “the tragic loss of life” and offered condolences to her family.
Among members of the far right, Babbitt’s death has inspired vigils, rallies, rap lyrics and social media hashtags. Many view her as a martyr.
A Kentucky man, Chad Barrett Jones, one of those smashing windows to the House Speaker’s Lobby before Babbitt began climbing through one, was convicted in July of two felonies and seven misdemeanours, including obstruction of an official proceeding and destruction of government property.
Family of Ashli Babbitt, slain during Jan. 6 riot, sues U.S. government
The family of a woman who was fatally shot by a police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has sued U.S. government.
Social media mocks Biden being led offstage by first lady
Social media users mocked President Biden for being led offstage by his wife first lady Jill Biden following his speech blasting MAGA supporters on Friday.
Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity
Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive&…
thehill.com
Huzzah! So now Biden can do whatever HE wants because Presidents are Immune from EVERYTHING! (so long as they have 35+1 people on their side)
Way to go, Trump Lawyers!
Goddamn they are fucking stupid, and so is the US public if they side with that (which sadly too many do, and they've admitted such on video)