Cover photo

Trump Disqualified in Colorado...But Why?

This Traffic Light Metaphor Explains What Happened and What Happens Next

I’ve been predicting for a while that the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause case that will eventually go before the Supreme Court would come out of Colorado, and with a Colorado Supreme Court split decision in Anderson et al v. Griswold yesterday, it looks like those wheels are in motion.

Another prediction: Trump’s name ultimately will appear on the Colorado primary ballot, and very likely on general election ballots as well. This is because the odds were stacked so strongly in his favor from the start, and because the currently constituted Supreme Court is such a favorable venue for him.

I have a metaphor that may help readers understand the issues at play in Disqualification Clause cases…

The Six Traffic Lights

Imagine the petitioners in the DQ case are driving on a road with six intersections in front of them and a traffic light at each intersection. If their car is stopped at a red light, they will not be able to proceed to their intended destination. If they arrive at a yellow light, they will have to wait until the light turns either red or green. To get a Trump disqualification, er, to reach their destination, they need all six lights to be green. Trump will be disqualified only if all the lights are green and he remains qualified for the ballot if any single light is red.

Technically, the first challenge is getting the car onto the street. The Arizona plaintiff in Castro v. Fontes, a Republican presidential candidate, was ruled to not have standing to bring a disqualification case because his campaign didn’t have a chance of winning no matter who he was running against. Ouch.

The first light is at the intersection of Justiciability Street. This light turns red if a court refuses to hear the Disqualification Clause case without a prior ruling from Congress. This was where the Minnesota petitioners’ journey in Growe et al. v. Simon came to an end because there’s no chance for a Trump disqualification resolution to pass through our currently constituted Congress.

The second light is at the intersection of Ripeness Street. This light turns yellow if a court decides the Disqualification Clause doesn’t apply to primary elections but still might apply to the General Election. This happened to the Michigan petitioners in LaBrant v. Benson, who are currently waiting at a yellow light that will turn green if Trump is the nominee chosen by the Republican National Convention. If Trump is not the Republican nominee, does not run as a third-party candidate, and ends his campaign, the yellow light will turn red as the issue becomes moot.

So far, only the petitioners in Colorado have gotten a green light at this intersection but cars in Michigan and other states are waiting at a yellow.

The third light is at the intersection of Insurrection Street. This light turns red if a court decides the events surrounding Jan 6 do not constitute an insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Courts don’t have a precedent to go by here, so must create a new standard and justify it under the law. The Colorado petitioners, in the only car to reach this intersection so far, got a green light from Judge Sarah B. Wallace at the district court level. Trump appealed, trying to turn this light from green to red, but the green light was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion.

The fourth light is at the intersection of Participation Street. This light turns red if a court decides that Trump’s actions on and before the insurrection don’t meet the definition of participation under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Again, there was no precedent, and again, Judge Wallace set a green light that was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court majority.

The fifth light is at the intersection of Oath Street. This light turns red if a court decides the presidential oath does not fall under the oaths required to invoke the Disqualification Clause. At the district court level, Judge Wallace put up a red light that the petitioners appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court majority turned this red light to green.

The sixth light is at the intersection of Officer Street. This light turns red if a court decides the presidency is not an office under the United States, as envisioned by the framers of the 14th Amendment. Judge Wallace had put a red light at this intersection as well, which was also turned green by the Colorado Supreme Court majority.

What Happens Next

The Judge Wallace’s district court was the first to rule on all six lights. The petitioners needed six green lights but got only four plus two reds. They appealed the red lights, looking to turn them green, while Trump appealed the green lights, looking to turn them red.

All the lights at the Colorado Supreme Court are green, but the case is stayed until January 4th pending anticipated appeals. Because it’s so certain that Trump will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and so certain that SCOTUS will take up the case, it would be pointless for the Colorado court to order the Colorado Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot until a final resolution.

In my opinion, in an ethical court interested in avoiding the appearance of personal bias, the three justices appointed by Trump would recuse themselves from the case and Justice Clarence Thomas would recuse himself from, at bare minimum, deliberations about the green light at Insurrection Street, as his wife is well known to have participated in the events of Jan 6. But that level of ethics is probably beyond the SCOTUS we have.

If the right-leaning SCOTUS, packed with Trump appointees, turns even one of those six green lights red, that will create a universal precedent and all pending Disqualification Clause cases will fail.

So while I personally agree with the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, I don’t expect it to stand for very long.


Let's see what else is going on...

  • Former Trump Attorney and Current Trump Co-Defendant Rudy Giuliani has been sued again for defamation by the same Georgia election workers who just won a $148 million verdict against him. America's Ex-Mayor can't seem to stop himself from spouting the same defamations in podcasts and even on the courthouse steps of his first defamation trial. Additional defamation plaintiffs are waiting in the wings.

  • Donald Trump is still appealing the gag order put in place by DC Judge Chutkin to prevent him from doxxing, harassing, threatening, or intimidating potential witnesses, court staff, and prosecutors. The Court of Appeals recently narrowed the gag order to permit Trump to attack Special Counsel Jack Smith, but Trump apparently wants a larger set of targets.

  • Today we're expecting a brief from Donald Trump about whether the issue of presidential immunity in the DC election interference case should be expedited to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump is expected to argue against skipping the Federal Court of Appeals since his interest is in delaying the trial as much as possible. The Court of Appeals, for its part, is expediting matters on its end and has set a hearing for January 9th.

  • In the New York Civil Fraud case, Justice Engoron denied Trump's sixth motion for a directed verdict in a scathing order in which Engoron clarified how unimpressed he was by Trump's near-million-dollar expert witness, Trump's reliance on a "worthless clause" to shift risk onto lenders, and Trump's attempts to shirk liability for continuing misrepresentations made within the statute of liability on loans that closed outside the statute of liability. There's no jury in this case. Justice Engoron is the sole trier of fact and damages, and the Trump team's strategy seems to have seriously pissed him off. Closing arguments are scheduled for January 2024.

  • In the Georgia election interference RICO case, co-defendant Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff the 2020 election and its aftermath, was denied a request to remove his portion of the RICO case to a Federal court. The Court of Appeals ruled that Meadows's efforts to overturn the election were carried out in his capacity as a campaign worker, rather than as a government official. The ruling implies that Trump was acting as a candidate rather than as president for the same actions. The scope of Presidential immunity is an issue in a number of cases Trump is currently facing.

Sneak Peek

I'll soon be announcing a collaboration with The Wealthiest Person in Human History (On Paper) — and it's not Elon Musk.

Yellowstone Rob and I will be releasing a book entitled, Fraud: A How-To Guide, based on the civil fraud case against Donald Trump and company.

Coming soon to the blockchain, as a traditional ebook, and in dead-tree formats. Stay tuned for details!


Collect this post to permanently own it.
Cryptoversal logo
Subscribe to Cryptoversal and never miss a post.
  • Loading comments...