Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Profile picture
Feb 8 15 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Here we go: Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney, opens by stating Trump is not an "officer" of US. Term applies to appointed not elected officials.

"A state cannot exclude any candidate from the ballot under Sec 3 of 14th Amendment."
Debate between justices and Mitchell centers on whether states have a right to enforce Sec 3 14th Amendment. Trump's attorney seems to suggest enabling legislation is needed.

Alito: "Who can enforce Sec 3 with respect to a presidential candidate? Consequences would be severe."
Also at issue is if implementation of Sec 3 14A by a state adds another qualification to run for president not currently in the Constitution.

Sotomayor and Mitchell going back and forth on this, for example, whether a candidate is 34 when running for president but will be 35 when taking office.

"Section 3 bans him from holding office," Mitchell
Argument now moves to whether a president is an "officer," something Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to bring up earlier but was asked to delay her questioning. KBJ, Kagan, and Gorsuch parsing out the definition Image
Alito asks if any state has ever disqualified a presidential candidate under Sec 3. Answer is of course no.

Now discussion related to criminal prosecution under insurrection statute--2383--which Mitchell admits is a possibility (although he raised immunity question)

From their brief:Image
KBJ back to asking about whether president falls under the category of "officer."

She also is first one to raise issue of Jan 6 as an insurrection. Mitchell called it a riot but not an insurrection.

CO voters atty Jason Murray up next. Says Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified.
Justice Thomas and Chief Roberts going hard on Murray off the bat, disputes that states have power to enforce 14A and discusses historical context and execution of Sec 3. Roberts calls the matter "ahistorical."
Kav: "Who decides if someone engaged in an insurrection?"

Murray argues Sec 3 is as prevailing as age, birthplace, residency of presidential candidate.

Kagan raises national consequences of a state (not Congress) imposing such a qualification. Calls it "extraordinary" for a state to singularly execute a Constitutional provision outside presidential qualifications.

ACB - "doesn't seem like a state call."

Not going well for CO side.
ACB again raises due process rights of Trump, limited evidence presented in CO "trial"

John Roberts essentially raises concerns over slippery slope effect - "it will come down to a handful of states that will decide the election."

Roberts interrupts Murray who responded that "frivolous" attempts might happen. "Insurrection is a broad term."


Murray also notes that Sec has been dormant for 155 years - not sure that helps.

Pretty clear where Roberts stands.
Oof Gorsuch scolding Murray a few times. "Don't say it again. Try to answer the question."

Murray: The only way to remove a president from office is impeachment.

KBJ also asks about individual states determining the eligibility of presidential candidate outside qualifications clause.
Generally, it appears the court recognizes the shoddy process that resulted in the CO decision. Murray basically says, go look at the record of Jan. 6.

Alito: "Which record?"

Murray raises Trump's twitter posts, keeps calling it "indisputable."

More debate on the impact of one state impacting the outcome of a national election.

Kagan: "What's a state doing...deciding who other voters can elect as president?"
Gorsuch back to "officer" debate.

Murray again not helping himself. "President Trump had a 5 day trial." LOL

Keep in mind who testified at this "trial": Eric Swalwell and DC Metro cop Daniel Hodges, caught misrepresenting his experiences on Jan 6 during at least one trial.

Kav notes that Trump has not been charged with 2382, the insurrection statute,

"If the concern you have--that insurrectionists should not hold office--there is a tool to make sure that happens," which is criminal prosecution.

Kav says Murray position could "disenfranchise" voters to a great degree. Murray says Sec 3 is intended to protect the "constitutional democracy."

"President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million voters."
KBJ again returns to definition of "officer" and pushes Murray to explain how Sec 3 scoops in president.

"Your point is there is no ambiguity?"

She also raises history of Sec 3, that was to prevent the south from rising again.

Now up: Shannon Stevenson, CO solicitor general
Stevenson represents CO Sec of State.

I lowkey love that Thomas is the first to ask questions of all participants. This is driving the Left NUTS.

Thomas wants Stevenson to explain how Sec 3 represents a qualification for president. She says its disqualifying.

She is pushed to defend a state removing a presidential candidate based on however state officials interpret sections of the Constitution. Stevenson insists Sec 3 is as much a qualification for president as age and birthplace.
Most justices concerned that other states will follow suit.

"Have faith in our system," LOL. She says "institutions" will make sure states don't overreach.

Alito asks which institutions. Word salad response.

Mitchell (Trump lawyer) back up for rebuttal: "Colorado has changed the criteria in Sec 3 that [applies it] before the candidate holds office."

Hearing over.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @julie_kelly2

Feb 3
Jack Smith filed his temper tantrum response to Trump's motion to compel in classified docs case.

(I explained Trump's allegations here.)

Smith's motion reveals new info related to collusion with Biden's White House and other stunning revelations 🧵

NARA and Biden WH started setting up Trump on a Presidential Records Act violation or destruction of records charge right after Biden took office.

NARA's pretext for engaging Team Trump and demanding boxes of files was these really super important records were "missing" 😂 Image
Trump's lawyers discovered evidence indicating NARA began drafting a criminal referral months before Trump produced 15 boxes to NARA in Jan 2022, which allegedly initiated the "classified docs" investigation.

But records show NARA in cahoots with Biden WH and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco's office well before the so-called "sensitive" papers were found in the Mar a Lago boxes and FBI opened the "official" inquiry in March 2022.

Another Lisa Monaco specialty!Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 30
To be a fly on the wall in sealed conference with Judge Cannon and Jack Smith's prosecutors tomorrow related to DOJ's fight to keep "classified" evidence away from Trump and his co-defendants.

This pertains to CIPA--special guidance for how classified materials can be viewed 🧵 Image
Defense counsel wants to see exactly what Jack Smith is attempting to hide and asking Cannon to make as much available on the public docket as possible even if some files are redacted. This could prompt more litigation as to Smith's CIPA 4 claims. Image
Judge Cannon has already denied Jack Smith's attempts to keep material under seal and unsealed some filings. She is no fan of Jay Bratt, Smith's lead prosecutor on classified docs case.

So today Smith added JP Cooney, who has been on J6 case, to classified docs team.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 23
I have obtained the transcript from Ray Epps' sentencing hearing earlier this month.

It's a doozy--asst US Attorney Michael Gordon admits Epps committed multiple crimes on January 6. Also lamented Epps being "unfairly scapegoated." Image
One of the "mitigating factors" in deciding to charge Epps with a misdemeanor instead of at least one felony incl 1512c2 was bc Epps was "the victim of this widespread conspiracy theory."

1,200+ "insurrectionists" would like a word, Mr. Gordon Image
LOL apparently Epps wrote a struggle session letter to the judge (as some do) blaming Trump for feeding him "the Big Lie" and insisting the FBI was not responsible for the insurrection. Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 22
NEW: My source at Fulton County courthouse reports that Judge Thompson has granted the motion to unseal divorce file of Nathan Wade, Fani Willis' lover.

Next up: Willis' motion for protective order.
Fani says Fani is too important to sit for a deposition.

Willis' attorney tells judge that the matter is a no fault divorce and adultery is irrelevant at this stage. Claims Fani does not share accounts with Nathan Wade, doesn't control what he spends money on. (LOL) Image
Judge interrupted Willis' attorney as he explained how busy she is dealing with Trump indictment. Does she have "unique personal knowledge" as to Wade's finances? Willis' attorney hedges, offers that there are other ways to get that information instead of deposition.

Jocelyn Wade atty up now. Claims Willis is attempting to get protective order to hide discovery to which Jocelyn Wade is entitled to know.

Willis is "trying to hide under the shield of her position improperly."
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
Trump’s attorneys tonight in classified docs case file bombshell motion for discovery—again insists Special Counsel Jack Smith is concealing evidence including voluminous records demonstrating collaboration btw Biden White House, NARA, DOJ, FBI, and intel agencies: Image
Joined by attorneys representing his 2 co-defendants, Team Trump again asks for records related to Biden’s DOE attempting to retroactively remove Trump’s security clearance AFTER Smith’s indictment.
Dirty isn’t even the word for these prosecutors and judges.

Keep in mind the chief judge overseeing the illicit use of a DC grand jury for a FLA investigation was Beryl Howell, who just got her ass handed to her by 4 appellate judges on Trump Twitter search. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jan 16
Holy sh*t: 4 judges on DC appellate court just delivered a scorching smack down of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Judge Beryl Howell, and Judge Florence Pan for search of Trump’s Twitter file.

“The Special Counsel’s approach obscured and bypassed any assertion of executive privilege and dodged the careful balance Congress struck in the Presidential Records Act.”

H/t @FamilyManAndrewImage
The court denied Twitter’s request for en banc (full court) consideration of decision by 3-judge panel that upheld Judge Beryl Howell’s order for Twitter/X to turn over all data for Trump’s Twitter account to Jack Smith and prevent company from notifying Trump.

My backgrounder here

This by Judge Naomi Rao is a withering condemnation of Judge Howell (district court) and Judge Pan (*this court*) about their decisions to brazenly circumvent normal exec privilege litigation process to give Jack Smith what he demanded.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!