Connect with us


Trump Did ‘Incite Violent Insurrection’ But Can Still Run For President, Colorado Judge Rules



Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to
reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot
under the novel 14th Amendment theory.

I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. I also view it as arguably the most dangerous theory to arise in decades.

Wallace reached the right conclusion, she committed, in my view,
fundamental errors in her analysis on the free speech elements of the

case involves a chilling effort of Democratic Secretary of State Jena
Griswold to use her office to prevent voters from being able to cast
their ballots for Trump, one of the leading candidates for the
presidency. Like other challengers, she claimed to be protecting
democracy by denying voters the ability to vote for their preferred
candidate on the basis of this dubious theory. Polls show Trump and Biden in a statistical dead heat at 42% (Biden) to 38% (Trump) which is within the margin of error.

Judge Wallace rejected the use of the amendment to prevent voters from voting for Trump in the 2024 election,
declaring that “[t]he Court holds there is scant direct evidence
regarding whether the presidency is one of the positions subject to

In her 102-page ruling, Wallace declared that
“[a]fter considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded
that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of
the United States. It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the
drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only
taken the Presidential Oath.”

Accordingly, “[t]he
Court orders the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the
presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5,

The scope of the provision is one of the
inherent questions presented by this theory. There is also the problem
with the limitation of Section 3 to those “engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can
extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
These challengers argue that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” and Trump
gave “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in it by spreading election
fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.

Most of the public do not agree with that assessment. In polling, most view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, a CBS News poll showed
that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a “protest gone too far.”
The view that it was an actual “insurrection” was far less settled,
with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan

On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and
denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. But as the
protest increased in size, some of us noted that we had never seen such a
comparatively light level of security precautions, given the weeks of
coverage anticipating the protest. We then watched as thinly deployed
police barriers were overrun and a riot ensued. It was appalling, and
most of us denounced it as it was unfolding. However, it was not a
rebellion or insurrection in my view.

Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — was written after the 39th
Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see
Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a
seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military
officers. That was a real rebellion in which hundreds of thousands died.

While Judge Wallace reached the right result, I have major qualms with her analysis.

She states as a fact that Trump was guilty of incitement, a charge that no prosecutor has ever brought against him. That includes the D.C. Attorney General who
announced his intention to pursue such charges. It also includes
Special Counsel Jack Smith who threw every other possible criminal
charge against Trump.

Nevertheless, Judge Wallace concludes that Trump “incited imminent lawless violence.”

She further found that:

addition to his consistent endorsement of political violence, Trump
undertook efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential
election well in advance of the election, making accusations of
widespread corruption, voter fraud, and election rigging.”

such, she finds that his speech was not protected by the First
Amendment. While I am a critic of Trump’s speech and actions on that
day, I still believe that the the court is completely wrong on the First

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court
ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the
First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or
state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being
taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.

The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot.
Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express
opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the
challenges being made by some members of Congress.

He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump also stated:

it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our
democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there
with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to
cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try
and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness
that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down
Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.

I have discussed previously, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence
Brandenburg referred to a planned march on Congress after declaring that
could be taken for the betrayal of the president and Congress. The
Supreme Court nevertheless overturned his conviction. Likewise, in Hess v. Indiana,
the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an
intention to take over the streets, holding that “at worst, (the words)
amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some
indefinite future time.” In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the
court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People after one official declared, “If we catch
any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your
damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.

Wallace dismissed such arguments and holds that “while Trump’s Ellipse
speech did mention “peaceful” conduct in his command to march to the
Capitol, the overall tenor was that to save the democracy and the
country the attendees needed to fight.”

The decision comes just days after another defeat in Michigan for advocates of this theory.

Had Wallace used this analysis to find in favor of disqualification, I believe that she would have been eventually reversed. As
it stands, we will have to wait to see if Griswald has the confidence
of her convictions to appeal. I hope that she does. We need to put this
insidious legal theory to rest with the finality and clarity of a
Supreme Court decision.

Here is the opinion: Anderson v. Griswald

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Continue Reading


Experts Declare Experimental Cancer Vaccine Based On mRNA Technology Is ‘Safe and Effective’




A new cancer vaccine based on Covid mRNA vaccine technology
which has yet to be clinically tested has already been declared “safe
and effective” by the British government.

Known as ‘LungVax’,
the new vaccine is being developed by the University of Oxford, the
Francis Crick Institute and University College London, and is expected
to be the first of a huge range of new cancer vaccinations available in
the near future.

Research scientists developing the ‘groundbreaking’ lung cancer
vaccine claim it will be effective in preventing up to 90 per cent of
cases by training the immune system to locate and attack early signs of

Lung cancer cells look different from normal cells due to having ‘red
flag’ proteins called neoantigens. The LungVax vaccine will carry a strand of DNA which trains the immune system to recognize these neoantigens on abnormal lung cells.

It will then instruct the immune system to destroy these cells and stop lung cancer.

Professor Tim Elliot, lead researcher at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Cancer
is a disease of our own bodies and it’s hard for the immune system to
distinguish between what’s normal and what’s cancer. 

‘Getting the immune system to recognize and attack cancer is one of the biggest challenges in cancer research today.”

Elliot admitted the new vaccine is based on technology used to create the Covid vaccine.

‘This research could deliver an off-the-shelf vaccine based on
Oxford’s vaccine technology, which proved itself in the Covid pandemic.

Remarkably, given the disastrous health consequences for those
vaccinated with the experimental Covid vaccines, Eilliot praised the
mRNA roll out as a success.

‘If we can replicate the kind of success seen in trials during
the pandemic, we could save the lives of tens of thousands of people
every year in the UK alone.’

Researchers have been granted up to £1.7 million from Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The team will receive funding for the study over the next 2 years to
support lab research and initial manufacturing of 3,000 doses of the
vaccine at the Oxford Clinical BioManufacturing Facility.

If successful, the vaccine will move straight into a clinical trials,
involving those at biggest risk of disease, such as current and former
smokers who currently qualify for targeted lung health checks in some
parts of the UK.

Continue Reading


TV Host Demands Gov’t ‘Take Control’ of Elon Musk’s X To ‘Shut Down’ Conspiracy Theories




Elon Musk’s X must be “shut down” by government because dangerous “conspiracy theories” are spreading on the social media platform, according to British TV host Jeremy Vine.

“If there any argument to say, and this will sound crazy, but
China does it, we’ve got to now take control of Twitter and shut it down
for the time being,”
said Vine.

Vine made the comments earlier this week during a heated debate
regarding speculation surrounding the health and whereabouts of Kate
Middleton, the Princess of Wales.

‘We’ve now got to take control of Twitter’…..???????????? ⁦

— Right Said Fred (@TheFreds) March 20, 2024

Boomers have become obsessed with speculating that Middleton has died or is severely unwell and that the Royal Family is hiding it because she hasn’t been seen in months after an operation.

The manipulation of a series of photo of Middleton and her children also only served to fuel the rumors, as some sources close to the princess claimed she had been murdered by the royal family.

However, instead of dismissing the whole issue for what it is, a pointless distraction that will disappear once Middleton makes a public appearance around Easter, Vine called for draconian measures.

Modernity report:

Ah yes, the Communist dictatorship of China, which shuts down the Internet to clamp down on dissent and enhance its repression of undesirables.

That’s definitely who we should be mimicking, Jeremy.

Throughout the COVID pandemic, Vine’s show was a platform for some of the most vulgar, authoritarian drivel imaginable.

One show asked if children who are unvaccinated should be banned from schools or made to wear special badges.

Another asked, “Is it time to ban the unvaccinated from traveling?”

Vine has made a name for himself as being a dutiful amplifier of regime messaging, while his annoying side hobby of biking around London looking to film confrontations with motorists has also angered many.

Continue Reading


Generated by Feedzy