Colorado Supreme Court’s narrow 4-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice Brian Boatright, a critical examination of the dissent reveals a nuanced perspective that deserves consideration.
While I concur with the majority’s meticulous analysis, establishing compelling evidence of Donald Trump’s alleged violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, specifically in connection to an insurrection criminal conspiracy against the lawful election of Joe Biden, I find myself aligned with Chief Justice Boatright’s dissenting opinion.
Undoubtedly, there is a weighty argument supporting the notion that Trump should face consequences for his actions. However, the question arises: Is it prudent for the country and legally sound to preclude Trump from running in the 2024 election without affording him due process—a fair trial, the right to cross-examination, and a verdict based on the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
More Read
Ironically, the central figure in this case, Donald J. Trump, notorious for his disregard of the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and due process, finds himself at the heart of a debate on these very principles. Recalling his rallying cry of “Lock her up!” during the 2016 campaign aimed at Hillary Clinton, it’s essential to highlight the lack of due process in that instance. Trump did not advocate for a fair assessment before leading that chant, despite subsequent findings that Clinton had not violated any criminal laws.
Drawing from this paradox, it becomes evident that, while it may seem hypocritical for Trump and his supporters to champion due process in the Colorado case, the importance of due process is underscored by Clinton’s example. She was never convicted of any wrongdoing. As of now, neither has Trump.
Special Counsel Jack Smith faces a formidable challenge in securing a conviction for criminal insurrection conspiracy. Having participated in a mock trial as “prosecutor” for Smith’s role, the intricacies of this case were illuminated. The trial, conducted by the respected nonprofit organization Open to Debate, highlighted the complexities and divergent perspectives on the matter.
In the mock trial, the defense, represented by Sara Azari, argued not only the absence of a smoking gun admission or written evidence by Trump but also contended that Trump’s false claims are protected as political speech under the First Amendment. My response emphasized that the First Amendment does not shield lies that are integral to a criminal conspiracy, pointing out that witness testimony may reveal Trump’s awareness of the election outcome.
While acknowledging the challenges ahead for Smith, I stressed that a fair trial must determine Trump’s culpability. A trial should consider evidence such as Trump’s admission to losing but simultaneously lying about it. Furthermore, it should evaluate the consistent affirmations of his loss by high-ranking officials he appointed.
In the interest of justice, a thorough examination of Trump’s culpability must occur within the confines of a trial, adhering to due process and a standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The significance of this legal process cannot be understated, as America grapples with the potential barring of a former president from running for office based on a civil court standard, far removed from the established principles of justice. Ultimately, the dissenting view holds merit: Trump should not be barred without an insurrection-related conviction resulting from a comprehensive trial and due process.
