In a startling courtroom revelation on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s legal defense faced a pivotal moment as attorney Scott Gessler admitted to improvisation in defining “insurrection.” The admission occurred during a tense exchange in the Colorado Supreme Court, where the 14th Amendment’s applicability to Trump’s eligibility for the presidency was under scrutiny.
The legal battle stems from appeals against a lower court ruling, which asserted Trump’s ineligibility to serve as president again, citing the 14th Amendment. This constitutional provision prohibits individuals engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding any office after taking an oath to support the Constitution.
The lower court had previously ruled in November that Trump was indeed “engaged in insurrection” on January 6, 2021, sparking a legal debate by asserting that the amendment does not cover serving as president.
More Read
Former federal prosecutor Adam Kamenstein described the case as “compelling,” leading to a series of lawsuits across multiple states aiming to remove Trump from primary ballots under the 14th Amendment. In response, Trump, the 2024 Republican frontrunner, dismissed the cases as “election interference.”
The courtroom clash between Gessler and Justice Richard Gabriel centered on the definition of insurrection. Gabriel questioned whether impeding the peaceful transfer of power constituted an insurrection.
Gessler responded ambiguously, citing historical context’s need for a substantial duration, geographical scope, and a goal of nullifying governmental authority. Justice Gabriel, referring to Webster’s definition, challenged Gessler’s additional conditions. In a surprising admission, Gessler conceded, “We’re all sort of making it up at the end of the day,” raising eyebrows in the courtroom.
Gessler further argued that the events of January 6 amounted to a riot rather than an insurrection, emphasizing the absence of firearms among Trump supporters storming Congress. Justice William Hood countered, noting injuries to around 170 police officers and the use of makeshift weapons causing significant damage, challenging Gessler’s characterization.
As the Colorado Supreme Court grapples with the legal intricacies, the contentious debate over the definition of insurrection unfolds. The nation awaits a decision that could hold profound implications for Trump’s political future, keeping citizens on the edge of their seats.
