Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Tuesday, November 7, 2023

Creative manipulation: How New York Judge Engoron's words got a Trumpian twist

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 06: Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom with attorneys Christopher Kise and Alina Habba during his civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court on November 06, 2023 in New York City. Trump is scheduled to testify in the civil fraud trial that alleges that he and his two sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump conspired to inflate his net worth on financial statements provided to banks and insurers to secure loans. New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued seeking $250 million in damages. His sons testified in the trial last week and his daughter Ivanka Trump is scheduled to testify on Wednesday after her lawyers were unable to block her testimony.  (Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)
Trump attorney Alina (Bimbo) Habba (right) gearing up for her aggrieved performance.

Donald Trump may be melting down on the witness stand, but you wouldn’t know that if you were just following what he and his legal team have to say about what’s going on in the courtroom where he’s testifying in a $250 million civil trial that threatens his ability to do business in New York.

During his lunch break, Trump went on Truth Social and posted a quote from Judge Arthur Engoron. “No, I’m not here to hear what [President Trump] has to say,” Trump claimed Engoron had said. Outside the courthouse, Trump attorney Alina Habba echoed that. “’I’m not here to hear what he has to say,’” she declaimed. 

“Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney and why exactly are taxpayer dollars being used in this courtroom? The answer is very clear: Because Miss James wants to stand right here like she did this morning and call my client a liar,” Habba said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James.

 What the judge actually said, according to reporter Adam Klasfeld, who’s in the courtroom, is: “I'm not here to hear what he has to say. He's here to answer questions.” In other words, Trump doesn’t just get to rant and ramble as if he were at one of his campaign rallies. He’s there to answer specific questions with legal significance, and that’s it. Which is what any witness in a trial is supposed to do.

Habba went on to go full scenery-chewing victim:

 “You have a right to hire a lawyer who can say something when they see something wrong,” she said. “But I was told to sit down today. I was yelled at, and I’ve had a judge who is unhinged slamming a table. Let me be very clear: I don’t tolerate that in my life. I’m not going to tolerate it here. And you know what? You shouldn’t either.”

Reasonable people know that Habba is not a reliable source here, but we can’t see what happened. It’s her emotional claims versus the matter-of-fact accounts coming from reporters in the courtroom.

As Meidas Touch’s Ron Filipkowski observed, “The NY trial continues to show, day after day, why Trump’s criminal trials MUST be televised. Fox & Newsmax won’t cover the trial. During every break, Trump & his lawyers come out and lie about what just took place, and millions believe their version because that’s all they get.”

Exactly that. It’s reasonable to say that many defendants deserve to be shielded from being recorded and broadcast on what may be some of their worst days. But with Trump, who has a whole troop of flying monkeys out on Fox News and One America News and Newsmax repeating his lies about what’s happening in the courtroom, the public interest requires that we have an immediate and accurate record of what was said, and one that is accessible to everyone.

...as Trump and his bimbo lawyer continue to furiously throw it at the wall.

Monday, November 6, 2023

REBIRTH OF FASCISM: Trump's ominous plan: The road to a second term and a broken democracy

Former President Donald Trump, waits for the continuation of his civil business fraud trial at New York Supreme Court, Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, POOL)

President Joe Biden won the 2020 election by almost 7 million votes. With a national margin of 4.4%, Biden’s win in many states was much larger. He took Minnesota by 7.3%, Colorado by 13.5%, Illinois by 16.9%, and California by 29.2%.

This was a solid win by any measure, and in many states, a landslide victory. Even Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election had, until recently, focused on the vote in a few states like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where Biden’s margin of victory was smaller, though still substantial.

But that’s changed. In recent appearances, Trump isn’t just repeating the claims he made leading up to Jan. 6, he’s claiming that he won “all 50 states” with “12 million more votes” than in 2016. And as his lies get bigger, Trump’s plans for a takeover of the United States get darker. Including openly discussing a military takeover on day one of his return to power.

As The Washington Post reports, Trump and his inner circle have been mapping out plans to use the federal government, including the military and Justice Department to “punish critics and opponents” if he manages to get back into the White House. Trump has even created his own Nixon-style enemies list of people he wants to be investigated or prosecuted as soon as he has the authority.

That list includes all those people who held positions of power in the first Trump White House, but who refused to side with Trump in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That list includes former Attorney General William Barr, former chief of staff John Kelly, and former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, as well as at least one of Trump’s former attorneys. According to Kelly, “There is no question in my mind he is going to go after people that have turned on him.”

In addition, Trump wants to prosecute officials and staffers at the Department of Justice and FBI who have been involved in the investigations into his criminal acts. All that’s in addition to the numerous “special prosecutors” Trump intends to appoint, including one to continue the Republican harassment of Biden and his family.

Included in Trump’s plans is invoking the Insurrection Act on day one, not to put down any actual rebellion, but to deploy the military to quell any protests over his return to power. In addition, Trump intends to revoke DOJ rules that keep the department’s decisions separate from the will of the White House and turn it into a tool for persecuting those judged insufficiently loyal.

This isn’t just something Trump is mumbling to himself or a few supporters. All this and more is part of “Project 2025,” a plan being assembled by a group of authoritarian right-wing think tanks creating a blueprint for a Trump dictatorship. The plans invoke both “punishment” and “revenge,” which are common themes of Trump’s statements and speeches. Trump is only part of a right-wing organization preparing to crush American democracy for good.

At a campaign stop in October, Trump claimed that the 91 felony counts now lodged against him are just political. “This is third-world-country stuff, ‘arrest your opponent,’” said Trump. “And that means I can do that, too.”

Trump has not been subtle about these plans. He’s openly discussed these themes of revenge at his rallies, using apocalyptic terminology like calling this the “final battle” and encouraging his supporters to conduct a “war” against government agencies like the DOJ. He’s offering his followers not just an overthrow of the current order, but the opportunity to engage in violence and be part of the authoritarian regime to come.

All of this is terrifying, and it’s only made more so by how the media is playing up any poll suggesting that Trump can win that second term while playing down the message that he is spreading to his supporters. Coverage of Trump’s threats, growing lies, and statements that are increasingly divorced from reality is spotty at best. Coverage of anything that suggests Trump is winning, that voters are dissatisfied with Biden, or that Democrats are in trouble gets guaranteed front-page treatment.

The media played this game in 2016, and the damage it did to the nation then may be irrevocable. In 2023, it is still trying to pretend that Trump is a reasonable opponent and that putting a thumb on the scales to hide his drive for an end to democracy is acceptable so long as it generates more clicks, views, and papers sold.

In 2006, Hamas won an election in Gaza and made sure it never faced democratic opposition again. That’s exactly what Republicans intend for America in 2024.

Large parts of the media are likely to cheer them on, right up until the day Trump’s propaganda ministers take over their operations. Then they’ll cheer louder.

Hardly a coincidence?  You have to wonder if Trump studies and practices Hitler's famous moves.

Sunday, November 5, 2023

GARRISON KEILLOR: We Must Become Children So Our Kids Can Survive

 We Must Become Children So Our Kids Can Survive  Garrison Keillor. (photo: The Birchmere)

 

America Is Not a Southern Baptist Country
 
Garrison Keillor / Garrison Keillor's Website 

An ordinary late October day and the world is dense with stately trees in variations of reds and gold and orange that Crayola never contemplated — no need to shop around for magic mushrooms or give up your life as a good citizen for something involving incense and flutes — just walk down the street ignoring the Halloween skeletons and let your heart be lifted. I’m descended from stoics, our emotional range runs from A to D, once or twice we’ve hit L, never W for wonderment but here I am in New York where something in the water encourages self-expression and I see a man on the subway platform do some little dance moves he’d maybe seen in the theater the night before. He’s not a dancer but he doesn’t let that stop him.

A short woman approaches and speaks something to me and I see she’s holding a cardboard tray of candies and a little boy clutches her pant leg and I remember reading about the Ecuadoran refugees who’ve come to the city, the women earning money just this way, and I reach into my pocket and pull out a twenty, which is a lot to pay for a small bag of M&Ms but how do you put a value on the look in the boy’s eyes. He is three or four and very keen. A train is coming into the station. This must be all strange to him but he isn’t frightened thanks to his anchor. He studies me, then the crowd emerging from the open doors, a man with a handsome dog on a leash, a guitarist playing into a little amp on the platform, and I board the train. But those dark eyes stay with me.

The classic story: the elders make a desperate choice to spare their children the grief of history and put language and life story behind and become as children themselves in order to start anew. So you learn as much English as you need — “Please,” the woman said, and then “Thank you,” and soon the little boy’s English will race on ahead of hers, but you will always address your Creator in the old tongue, and so, the next Sunday, leaving my Episcopalians I walk through clouds of happy Spanish emerging from Our Lady down the street, women clustered around the priests, children orbiting around them, men smoking.

And then there’s me, a reverse refugee, returning to the Anglicans my evangelical forebears escaped from. They were serious scholars of doctrine, the ultraorthodox of Protestantism, disputatious, separatist, and in the end rather arid, choosing the deserts of correctness to the green pastures of love and mercy, and when I go to church I go to commune with my aunts. The uncles were the stoics, the aunts were generous, even lavish with affection, just as this October day is.

Some old liberal pals have thought about maybe finding a new country if the unthinkable happens next year but that’s silly. The MAGAticians have elected a Speaker, second in line to the Presidency, who upholds this country as a theocracy and believes Halloween is evil and who imagines the ghosts of children destroyed by Roe v. Wade, and since the stolen election has given us an outlaw government, I imagine he’d favor a constitutional convention that could give us the President for Life that so many people crave. This may sell in Shreveport but it’s heavy baggage to be trucking around to the talk shows.

A party that holds such reverence for the semiautomatic rifle that its reps are tongue-tied in the face of mass murder in Maine is lacking a heart, not to mention brain matter. All Republicans could do was say they were praying for the victims. The prayers of politicians tend to be pro forma. Prayer is not the best means of preserving peace. The FBI does not rely on prayer in searching for a lunatic SOB who grew up in a family of gun-lovers and decided to confront his demons in a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston.

If you think the Second Amendment guarantees terrorists a right to carry assault weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear weaponry, then you need to find another country to live in and leave the rest of us to enjoy the woods of October. I pray that Speaker Johnson finds his mind; America is not a Southern Baptist country. It’s where Mike and I can be next-door neighbors, be amiable over the fence, watch over each other’s property, be a help when needed, he can hand out gospel tracts on Halloween, I can be a ghost, but if he shows me his collection of assault rifles, I’m moving to a better neighborhood.

Saturday, November 4, 2023

Hardships of an American princess: Ivanka complains about testifying during school week

no image description available

Ivanka Trump is scheduled to appear in the New York courtroom of Judge Arthur Engoron on Nov. 8 to give testimony in the ongoing fraud trial against the Trump Organization. Since she was not a trustee of the company during the period covered by the trial, Ivanka isn’t facing any personal consequences. She’s just being called as one of multiple witnesses who have insider knowledge of how the whole scheme to manipulate the value of Donald Trump’s properties worked. Ivanka was named as a central point of contact in the case because she helped to negotiate multiple loans that were based on inflated property valuations.

But Ivanka doesn’t want to testify. So on Thursday, she filed another appeal of Enrogon’s order for her to appear in court. That appeal included a touching argument from Ivanka’s attorneys saying, “Ms. Trump, who resides in Florida with her three minor children, will suffer undue hardship if a stay is denied and she is required to testify at trial in New York in the middle of a school week.”

Yes. Ivanka Trump was asked to testify in the middle of a school week. Despite this horrific imposition, CNN reports that the appeals court has already moved to deny Ivanka’s motion to stay her testimony. Will no one think of the children? Or the nannies.

In her 2017 book, “Women Who Work,” Ivanka makes just one mention of having a nanny, saying that some of the best pictures she has of her children were taken by the nanny. To this thought, she adds a small addendum: “I’m sure in ten years I’ll convince myself I took them!”

It hasn’t been quite 10 years, but apparently Ivanka has convinced herself that her material presence is so necessary that she can’t hire a babysitter for the day so she can obey a subpoena. Can’t they pencil in her court appearance for, say, summer of 2024? She might be able to work them in. No promises.

In 2020, Ivanka gave an interview to People, complaining that she is “exhausted” from the pressures of having three children at home, selling Ivanka-brand shoes, and “running the Trump Organization alongside her brothers.” In that same interview, she does make another single mention of her “trusted nanny” and the fact that her mother-in-law is just two blocks away.

Considering the number of people who don’t happen to be insanely wealthy and pampered who are required to make court appearances without the benefits of staff or extended family, it’s hard to think of Ivanka’s appeal as anything other than a privileged whine channeled through an attorney. It would seem that if she could trust her nanny to care for the kids while she peddles shoes, she might also give some of that trust so she can take care of testifying about that other thing. The “running the Trump Organization alongside her brothers.”

That Ivanka herself isn’t one of those facing potential fines and penalties from this trial is only a matter of timing. The grand jury reportedly heard evidence of her involvement in the value-fixing schemes, but she was not charged because her potential crimes were outside the statute of limitations for fiscal malfeasance in New York.

So the worst thing that will happen to her is some potentially unflattering photos strolling into the courtroom and some uncomfortable moments being asked about just what she did while the nanny was at home taking photos of the kids.

On Thursday, those two brothers who Ivanka worked alongside both sat down to answer questions in court. Here's a quick summary of Junior and Eric's day in court on Thursday: Junior spent the morning snickering and shrugging, explaining that even though he had signed all these documents, many of them saying he had verified the numbers included, he never actually bothered to read anything and just trusted his lawyers and accountants to put things in front of his pen.

Eric then tried to follow the same course. Unfortunately for him, prosecutors were ready with a whole string of emails and memos showing that he had been directly involved in inflating the value of Trump's New York properties to the tune of over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Junior's constant playing of the ignorance card is unlikely to help him avoid serious penalties because when you sign onto documents as the person legally responsible, you're legally responsible. Even if you didn't bother to read what you were signing. But Eric may face more punishment simply because it seems like, unlike Junior, he did something in his job other than powder his nose and scrawl his name. Unfortunately, what Eric did was commit fraud.

Prosecutors will likely limit the questions directed at Ivanka to areas that can help in their case against her father and brothers. But it might be nice if they also took a little time to show some of the ways Ivanka was part of the scheme.

It’ll be something for the children to remember.

Your All American Family at rest after a long life of inflating property values.

Friday, November 3, 2023

ALDOUS J. PENNYFARTHING: Trump's bimbo lawyer appears to think the Secret Service will keep her client out of jail. Uh, no.

ScreenShot2023-11-01at10.09.15AM.png
Alina Habba

By Aldous J. Pennyfarthing

Community

Daily Kos

3 November 23

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

If you ever find yourself in legal peril, you might want to consider hiring Alina Habba as your attorney. But only if you’re on trial for dropping a house on a witch, because if you hire her for committing crimes in the real world, you’ll likely be in for a rude awakening.

Habba, who averages one star on Yelp for her legal work and five for her spot-on Barry Zuckerkorn impression, is currently representing Donald Trump, a lifelong (alleged!) criminal and con man who was also a federal employee for a time. Trump is facing loads of legal peril, and Habba’s job is to go on teevee to convince millions of people who are already sure he’s innocent that the Brobdingnagian heap of criminal and civil accusations against him were all meticulously curated by a sitting president who’s nothing but a listless amalgam of advanced dementia symptoms. If, during sentencing, she somehow manages to score him a hard-bristled toothbrush for his weekly prison urinal cleanings, that’ll just be gravy.

On a recent appearance with Newsmax’s Carl Higbie, Habba claimed Trump isn’t worried about going to jail because he “did nothing wrong”—and, oh, the Secret Service will keep that from ever happening anyway.  

What does that mean? Who knows, really? The Rosetta stone for translating MAGA-speak into the King’s English is likely more fermented psychedelic toad venom than any of our snowflake liberal bodies could possibly handle.

Watch:

HIGBIE: “Talk about the gag orders real quick, because these things are just absolutely wack to me. He’s campaigning for president of the United States again, and they’re putting gag orders on him [about] what he can and can’t say about a trial that is actually fueling his campaign, raising millions of dollars on it. … Could they even possibly throw him in jail? What would that look like?”

HABBA: “He’s protected by Secret Service, period. So I always tell people when they’re panicked, listen, he’s protected by Secret Service, No. 1. No. 2, he did nothing wrong. So when people go to jail it’s because they’ve done something wrong. Do we have crooked situations in and out of court, absolutely. Could they try? Probably, but it won’t work because there is still trial process. There is still facts, and unfortunately they’re not going to win on the facts. Secret Service will always protect President Trump, that’s the truth. They have to, wherever he is.”

Wait, what? Is she suggesting there’d be an OK Corral-style shootout between the Secret Service and the court bailiff working Trump’s New York fraud trial if Judge Arthur Engoron throws Trump in the cooler for blatantly violating his limited gag order? Or is she suggesting he has a stay-out-of-jail-free card because he has an armed Praetorian guard that’s paid for by the, uh, federal government—which may end up convicting him in one or both of the federal cases against him. Something tells me they’ll find a way to work through that little snag if and when he’s sentenced.

Ah, but none of that matters because—have you heard the good news, friend?—that big, mercurial ball of heaving, splenetic rage who stays up all night hate-tweeting like a roomful of chimps trying to replicate Shakespeare’s greatest expletive-laden encounters with kidney stones has done nothing wrong! Can’t you tell? Just look at how innocent he acts all the time!

HABBA: “But it’s not even something we think about, to be honest, because this is all political. It’s really not, there’s no criminal acts that he’s done. There’s no civil wrongs that he’s done, unless making money for banks is a civil wrong all of a sudden.”

HIGBIE: “Orange man bad, I mean, that’s the [unintelligible].”

HABBA: “It’s Trump derangement syndrome at its best. I’m not worried about him. He’s not worried, and so the American public shouldn’t be worried. He’s succeeding for a reason.”

HIGBIE: “I would dare this judge to try to try to throw him in jail.” 

HABBA: “First Amendment. First Amendment is a thing.”

HIGBIE: “It is a thing.”

The First Amendment is a thing! You learn that on day one of law skool. This nearly proves—or at least suggests—that Alina showed up for her first day of classes. Though somehow she must have missed the part about the Secret Service not being a private army that allows you to go on “Purge”-style crime sprees until you’ve had your fortnightly fill of lightly braised street urchin. 

Meanwhile, one ex-Trump attorney, Ty Cobb, thinks Trump, who’s already been fined $10,000 for violating the limited gag order in his civil trial, actually will spend time in jail for running afoul of at least one of the gag orders against him (oh, you thought there was only one?) no matter how many cult members he has in his Secret Service detail and how many Molotov cocktails they’ve been stockpiling in their arts and crafts rooms. But Cobb thinks he’s more likely to be jailed for violating Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order in the election interference case than for further irritating Engoron. 

Granted, both Cobb and Habba have worked for Trump, but Cobb represented Trump when he was still pr*sident, well before he exhausted every name in the “law” section of the Yellow Pages and was forced to move on to the “lawn and garden” section. (Hey, if anyone still uses the Yellow Pages, it’s Trump.)

Of course, Newsmax isn’t really a news station, and Habba isn’t really a lawyer. Though she does play one on TV. Poorly, it turns out. Unlike this guy.

No, the Secret Service doesn't have any Get Out of Jail Free cards.
 

RELATED STORY: ICYMI: The Colorado trial that could derail Trump's 2024 run

Alina Habba

Thursday, November 2, 2023

House Speaker Mike Johnson's lifelong position on birth control


House Speaker Mike Johnson's Long Crusade Against Birth Control 

 House Speaker Mike Johnson. (photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call)

Tessa Stuart / Rolling Stone 

The new speaker has been fighting to block access to birth control — both inside and outside of Congress

At the Louisiana Right to Life Forum on Nov. 15, 2013, Mike Johnson — still lawyer, and not yet a public official — spoke about his efforts challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate, a provision of the Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans.

In his view, Johnson explained, certain types of birth control are methods of abortion.

“Everybody asks us all the time: ‘Why do you guys care so much? The HHS mandate it’s really just about contraception, sterilization. … What’s the big deal? Well, those are abortifacients,” Johnson says. “The morning after pill, as we know, is an abortifacient.”

Neither sterilization or emergency contraception medications like Plan B, are abortifacients. Both are forms of birth control that prevent a pregnancy from occurring, but do not end an existing pregnancy. A representative for Johnson, now the speaker of the House of Representatives, did not respond to an inquiry about whether Johnson still believes those forms of birth control are “abortifacients.”

Johnson is known for being among the most anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress, and for railing against the use of “abortion as a form of birth control” before he was in office. But his statements and actions suggest he does not see much difference between abortion as a form of birth control and birth control as a form of birth control.

As a lawyer, Johnson worked on multiple cases representing plaintiffs who refused to dispense, counsel, or provide emergency contraception, which they considered to be abortion-inducing drugs. And as a congressman, Johnson has repeatedly voted against efforts to expand, fund, or protect access to birth control and other family planning services — including for members of the military.

While a certain, largely female segment of the Republican party has undertaken efforts to expand access to birth control in the wake of Dobbs, Johnson has not joined those efforts.

His position places Johnson outside the mainstream: According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted last year, 91 percent of voters believe birth control should be made free and widely available if abortion is not — including 61 percent of voters who oppose abortion. Earlier this year in Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, the Republican candidate for governor, was forced to clarify his position on birth control, after an outcry over his answers on a candidate survey suggested he believed some methods of birth control were forms of abortion that should be punishable with criminal penalties.

But as Abortion, Every Day has reported, the misconception that certain types of birth control are essentially abortion has in recent years gained a foothold among some of the country’s most strident anti-abortion groups. The prominent anti-abortion advocacy group Students for Life maintains that IUDs, emergency contraception, and hormonal birth control all qualify as “abortifacients.” (When Johnson was elevated to House speaker, Students for Life proudly announced that he holds an A+ rating from the organization.) Concerned Women for America, meanwhile, holds that abortion “is the termination of the development of life in the womb at any time from the moment of fertilization.”

At the time Johnson equated emergency contraception with abortion at the Louisiana Right to Life Forum, he was part of the legal team representing Louisiana College. The small Christian college, based in Pineville, was suing Kathleen Sebelius, then secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, over the ACA requirement that the college provide birth control coverage for its employees. The school, according to the lawsuit, objected to providing “so-called ‘emergency contraceptives’” that they claimed “cause early abortions.”

Years earlier, Johnson was a lawyer for the right-wing religious litigation shop Alliance Defense Fund, later rechristened the Alliance Defending Freedom. While working for the ADF, Johnson represented Toni Lemly, a Louisiana nurse who refused to dispense emergency contraception — or even tell patients about the medication.

Lemly, who worked in the family planning clinic at St. Tammany Parish Hospital’s community wellness center, had her hours reduced from full time to part time after she refused to counsel patients about their birth control options. At the time, Johnson said, “All that she asks of the hospital is to respect her freedom in choosing to not participate in the taking of a human life.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, like Johnson, did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Since arriving in Congress, Johnson has continued to champion these views. He supported a rule that allowed health care workers with a “religious or conscience” objection to providing birth control or sterilization to refuse to participate in those procedures. He also voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would have protected access to birth control, and participated in a number of legislative efforts to keep the bill from getting to the floor. It did so — and passed — despite Johnson’s efforts.

Mike Johnson and the Republican Party are clearly out of touch with America on abortion.

Wednesday, November 1, 2023

The biggest Trump trial of the week could be happening in Colorado

no image description available

By Mark Sumner for Daily Kos

Daily Kos Staff 

Donald Trump is currently facing a civil fraud trial in New York, a second trial related to his sexual assault of writer E. Jean Carroll, a state racketeering trial centered on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal trial for election interference in Washington, D.C., and a federal trial in Florida on charges related to his illegal retention of national security documents. That’s a pretty full slate, but another trial got underway this week in Colorado that could potentially have as much impact on Trump’s chances in the 2024 election as any of the above.

The trial, which began on Monday in the Denver courtroom of State District Judge Sarah Wallace, is breaking new legal ground. In it, a group of Colorado voters have requested that Trump be forbidden from appearing on the presidential ballot in that state due to the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

At the moment, this effort has garnered relatively little attention. However, should Wallace determine that Trump cannot run for federal office in Colorado, the effects could spread rapidly. A similar trial is expected to begin soon in Minnesota, and other states are close behind.

The 14th Amendment contains several sections and has been at the core of some closely decided Supreme Court cases. However, the wording of Section 3 is easy to interpret:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

There’s not a lot open to interpretation there. Any previous office holder who took an oath to defend the Constitution and who then engaged in an insurrection of rebellion against the United States is not allowed to run for federal or state office.

The only question that Wallace needs to answer is whether that applies to Trump. As The New York Times reported on Monday, the voters who brought this case to court say that Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, along with his broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, meet the definition of an insurrection or rebellion.

Trump and his attorneys have leveled the same accusation of “election interference” against the Colorado trial that they have used in attempting to halt other legal actions against Trump. However, Wallace has already rejected multiple attempts by Trump’s team to have the case dismissed. That includes rejecting a motion to dismiss on grounds that the trial violated Trump’s rights to free speech—an approach that also met with defeat in the D.C. courtroom of Judge Tanya Chutkan on Sunday when she moved to reinstate a gag order against Trump.

The trial opened with dramatic testimony from D.C. Metro Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who called the events of Jan. 6 “horrific” and said they were a “terrorist attack on the United States of America.” Rep. Eric Swalwell also testified, describing events of Jan. 6 from his perspective inside the Capitol.

According to the Times, Trump’s attorneys argued that the 14th Amendment requirements were not met, because “engaging” in an insurrection requires more than “mere incitement through words,” which seems very much as if Trump’s legal team was admitting that Trump had incited an insurrection. The testimony from Trump’s team on Monday consisted of submitting a pair of Trump tweets encouraging his supporters to leave peacefully, both of which were not issued until hours after the assault began.

As The Washington Post points out, similar lawsuits did not keep Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn or Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballots (though Cawthorn went on to lose). However, a county commissioner was removed from office in New Mexico for his involvement on Jan. 6 after a state judge determined he had violated Section 3.

In addition to dealing with whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, Wallace will also need to determine whether Section 3 prevents someone from running for office, rather than holding that office if elected. In an earlier court document, Wallace laid out nine points of discussion, including how Section 3 has been interpreted and applied in the past—which may mean looking at cases going back to the Civil War.

The Minnesota case is expected to get underway this week and will be heard directly by the state supreme court. Since these are cases brought at the state level meant to determine candidates those states allow to appear on ballots, experts believe it’s unlikely that the United States Supreme Court will intervene in these cases.

Just your every day average tourists visiting their Capitol.