A liberal Colorado judge rejected a lawsuit seeking to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment ban on “insurrectionists.” The judge found that under the Constitution, a President is not an “officer of the United States” who can be disqualified by the Amendment. However, she went on to say that he "engaged in insurrection" by sparking the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. And of course, that’s the big headline in most of the news stories.
Granted, I’m not a judge – not even an attorney – but in what world does a judge have the right to publicly brand someone guilty on the court record of a crime for which he was never indicted, much less convicted? The finding that the Constitution does not apply was not only all she needed to say, it was all that she had the power to say, not having presided over any trial of those charges. That gives a strained new meaning to the term, “judicial opinion.”
In a related story, the judge in Trump’s election interference case in DC, Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejected a request from Trump’s attorneys to remove language from the indictments referring to "actions of independent actors at the Capitol on January 6,” which Trump did not commit and for which he was not charged. They argued that “allegations related to these actions are not relevant and are prejudicial and inflammatory.” Chutkan ruled that, "Regardless of whether the allegations at issue are relevant, Defendant has not satisfied his burden to clearly show that they are prejudicial,"
Yeah, why would it be prejudicial to fill an indictment with a list of crimes other people committed and that the defendant isn’t even accused of?
In Michigan, where a judge threw out a lawsuit trying to keep Trump off the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds, the democracy-hating Democrats who brought it are appealing to the state Supreme Court. Let’s hope they use their gavels appropriately on it.
Finally, as Gomer Pyle would say, “Sur-prize! Sur-prize!” The judge in Trump’s New York real estate fraud case rejected his attorneys’ filing for a mistrial based on his demonstrated and possibly illegal bias (such as commenting on a case in front of him on a collegiate social media page), finding that it was “utterly without merit.” Funny, that phrase also occurred to me, but not in relation to the mistrial filing.
In response, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik filed her second ethics complaint against this judge.
RELATED: Special Counsel Jack Smith likened himself to a saint, giving everyone a much-needed laugh.