Thread by @RBReich

Here's why the Colorado ruling that Trump can appear on the ballot despite engaging in an insurrection contains more bad news for Trump than good news.

🧵1/8

On Friday, Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence.” 2/8

Bingo.

It’s the first official legal finding that Trump participated in an insurrection. 3/8 washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…

The judge made a finding of *fact* that Trump engaged in an insurrection, but let him stay on the ballot because her *interpretation* of the 14th Amendment's disqualification of insurrectionists was that it didn't apply because it didn't specifically mention the presidency. 4/8

Judge Wallace’s decision will be appealed. But here's the thing: Appellate courts defer to district court judges’ findings of fact. Which means that on appeal, Judge Wallace’s finding that Trump incited an insurrection is likely to stand. 5/8

Yet appellate courts do not defer to district court interpretations of law or the Constitution. Which means that on appeal, Judge Wallace’s convoluted interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment may not be affirmed. 6/8

The bottom line: This isn't some obscure provision.

A New Mexico judge used it last year against an insurrectionist county commissioner. It must also apply to Trump.

Having once incited an insurrection against the U.S., there’s every reason to believe he’d try it again. 7/8

We need to pay attention to this case as it continues to make its way through the courts. I shared my thoughts in more detail here:

8/8 bit.ly/40OIeDQ