Select Page

Legal Witch-Hunt: Trump-Haters Desperate to Ban Him from 2024 Election

Legal Witch-Hunt: Trump-Haters Desperate to Ban Him from 2024 Election

On Wednesday evening (November 8), Laura Ingraham started her show on Fox News with commentary on the news of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in the lawsuit that tried to take Trump off the ballot in 2024. Calling out the attempt of the Democrats to ban Trump from the 2024 presidential election, Ingraham said, “They keep trying to stop Trump. And they keep failing.”

But Democrats and anti-MAGA Republicans are not giving up on trying to stop the one man who can seriously thwart their political agenda from running for the presidency again. The Trump-hating segment of voters in Colorado – four Republicans and two “unaffiliated voters” – filed a lawsuit in September to force Secretary of State Jena Griswold into removing Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballots, including the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.

The justification offered by these anti-Trump voters is the false narrative of an insurrection on January 6 allegedly incited by him. The case filed against President Trump seeks to ban Trump from participating in the 2024 election or holding any public office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – which disqualifies anyone from public office or service if they engaged in an insurrection or rebellion.

Not trusting that Colorado’s Democrat Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, would adequately fight the petitioners, President Trump made himself part of the litigation to fight the case against him. It is worth mentioning that the Democrats hold a deep role in this effort to cancel President Trump’s constitutional right to run for presidency. As The Denver Post wrote about the case:

It’s spearheaded by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a liberal watchdog group.

Adding to it, the judge named Sarah Wallace presiding over the case has been revealed as a Democrat donor with multiple donations to Democrat candidates and causes including one as recent as 2022, made to Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock’s campaign. President Trump’s legal team took note of this political conflict of interest and moved to have Wallace recuse herself over her donations to Democrats. But the judge argued that she didn’t remember having making such donations while cognizant of the mission of the Colorado Turnout Project, whose mission is replacement of Republican representatives with Democrat ones.

The legal scene of this trial in Colorado seems to be heavily tilted with prejudice against President Trump. One Trump supporter, Amy Kremer, who testified in the trial, wrote on Twitter/X:

“They were pushing the narrative that President Trump incited his supporters on J6 with his speech and tweets.”

On Tuesday (November 7), independent journalist Emerald Robinson shared her commentary on how the attorneys in the Colorado 14th Amendment case were caught showing a doctored video with false timestamps in their opening arguments in the courtroom.

Will the desperate unofficial coalition of Democrats and anti-MAGA Republicans be able to ban a former president from running again by accusations of engaging in an insurrection? Legal analyst Aron Solomon, in his op-ed published in Newsweek (November 6), wrote that it seems very unlikely to settle this level of a political case through a single court ruling. He believes that any ruling will be challenged for re-litigation and the case will end up before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to be the leading Republican candidate in the race for 2024. According to The Washington Examiner (November 6), he leads his main Republican challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, by a massive 50 points. Leftist media like The New York Times, despite their heavy prejudice against Trump, have acknowledged that Trump is currently beating Joe Biden in key battleground states by four to ten percentage points.

About The Author

14 Comments

  1. frank stetson

    What is this guy’s problem?

    Here are two legal court cases attempting to toss Trump off the primary for two States. Dumpster whines. Dumpster cries. Dumpster babbles. Mostly babbles. Explains why his knickers are so, so knotted as he quotes Ingram exclaiming: “these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.” Ah, that old refrain once again. Reminds me of that late winter day when I heard the words:

    “We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”
    Followed closely by: “We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.”

    Oh the memories of when the dream was reality and reality was: “We want to go back and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we’re not going to stand for that.”

    I think Dumpster has shit for brains to be “miffed” having a public hissy fit over a couple of LEGAL court cases. Come on Man, if you had Trump in your sights and you were given this opportunity, wouldn’t you. Be careful how you answer since you basically did it 67 times in 2021.

    “They keep trying to stop Trump. And they keep failing.”

    Let me remind you — it’s legal.

    Let me remind you of 62 failed court cases over the 2020 election.

    Let me remind you of 4 failed State recounts over the 2020 election.

    Let me remind you that on 1.6.2021, who invited all those prospective rioters, and a few conspirators to sedition, to DC, to unleash them on the Capitol saying “these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer
    “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he said on 1.6.2021 — come on, you wouldn’t take a shot at that if you legally could? Come on, be honest.

    Fact is I was going to regale you with all his “fight speak” on that day in comparison to one time usage of the word peacefully. And to be Trumpian, he did say march peacefully, he did not specify what to be once you got there…… BUT: chillax….. I painfully read the whole thing and IMO, it’s a stretch to convict on this. Frankly, my bigger concern is that did he hypnotize them with this Chinese-water-torture of a speech? I mean it towers over rant. It is archetype grievance-based, conspiracy-theory laced, SCREED. b o r i n g unless you are really pissed off at the world. I mean everything.

    I dare you to read it. Tell me it wasn’t like a double dose of Dilaudid by the end? But inciting to riot, does not look like it to me. Still, I would take a shot at proving it in court.

    And Trump does say go peacefully even though he said to fight over 20 times. After one fight-full stanza, the crowd erupts with a chant: “fight for Trump, fight for Trump, fight for…..” Often invoked as “flight like hell” where Hell is used different ways over a dozen times…. So, sure, I am betting he gets off with this one, but given the speech, given the other speeches that were even worse —— I’d take a shot at this given it’s a legal lawsuit. Seems like he’s begging for the chance.

    Reply
    • Jim lucas

      Hey Frank. Go suck!!!!

      Reply
    • Mike Pence

      Hamas just called, they want you to be their new spokesidiot.

      Reply
      • frank stetson

        Mike, you spoke to Hamas? You are looking for their new spokesperson? That’s unamerican and antisemitic

        Reply
  2. Andy

    The Constitution actually says that the person who violated the Constitution cannot hold office. It does not say that they cannot run for said office. I suspect one or more courts to realize this, then it will get bumped up to SCOTUS. How ironic if Trump’s strict Constitutionalist judges ruled that he cannot hold the office of President, even if he won the election.

    So there is a real possibility that whoever is the VP is who the voters are actually voting for President, assuming Trump picks a clean VP running mate.

    Maybe the Speaker of the House?

    Reply
    • Dan tyree

      The speaker of the House would be great vp pick. And since when did commiecrats care about the constitution?

      Reply
    • Brenda Choate

      The Constitution, specifically the often abused14th Admendment was ratified JULY 9,1868, Section 3 states that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, elector of President or Vice President, under the United States or under any STATE who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, shall have engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, But Congresss may by a vote ot two-thirds of of each House, remove such disability.” This Admendment was SPECIFICALLY enacted following the Civil War. Were we to continue with the rhetoric around Trump then that SAME Admendment would apply to well over half our government’s elected and appointed officials. The removal of Trump’s name is not the perview of the state election officials, but must garner the two-thirds of the State legislative. There is very little legallity related to Trump.

      Reply
    • Tom

      Nope, right now Trump is leaning towards Tucker Carlson. Oh brother!

      Reply
  3. frank stetson

    Dan, you may not have noticed given your Trumplicant blindness, but it’s your guy that has the Constitutional issues. My guy is still in the alleged category.

    Can you believe this douche bag is having his lawyers call Don Jr. back to the stand? Freakin guy is probably throwing his own son under the bus….. Next we’ll, find out all Don Trump signatures are sonny boy’s and the old man never signed a thing….. Figures it’s Don Jr and not Ivanka going under the bus, he’s got other plans for her……digital plans no doubt……

    Reply
    • Dan tyree

      Actually I’m not a trumplicant. I’m planning on supporting someone else in the primary. But if trump is the nominee I’ll proudly support him. And I’m wear my trump cap and shirt in public. I feel you Frank. You’ve made it your life mission to see trump defeated. But ask yourself if you really want retard joe another four years. If he lasts that long without his health condition deteriorating or the deep state dealing with their “ problem “ Hillary style. I see nobody from your commie party fit to be president. Do you have someone else in mind?

      Reply
  4. frank stetson

    Being a Trumplicant is different from voting for Trump…. And holding your vote until the national is still voting for Trump….

    Trump is defeated, not sure why we are all still talking about him. Only the fact that you will vote for him again, I guess. My mission to see Trump defeated? Not bloody likely. My mission is to see him held accountable and for people to hold him to that account. I am sure on the first one, the second one is up for grabs. We screwed the pooch on the first impeachment — what were we thinking hiring Mueller for his chicken-shit swan song. I mean the guy spent our money to assemble one of the best prosecutorial financial team and never mentioned a buck. Then issues a report but stands down on any criticism or desire for clarification. Really felt like the fix was in, but it’s on us. The second impeachment we had him cold and that’s on you. You know he did it, you know he intended it, but you nullified the truth in a partisan choice over principle. And then he sent the mob to tear it all down.

    And now we have him. He’s a digital rapist of the defamation variety. His business is adjudicated as corrupt. His lawyers pleaded guilty to trying to rig the election, and we still are less than 50% of the way in to those 91 charges. It’s over except for some whacky forgiveness dance where you vote for him anyway.

    Yes, I will vote for Biden unless someone more viable steps up. As far as his health — he’s three years older than Trump who is showing his stress on the trail now misspeaking, not aware of where he is, confusing Biden and Obama in his rants, afraid Biden will start WWII, and more. He’s got the best doctors….. after all.

    As noted before, I would have rather he picked his successor, but here we are. With Don, I got adjudications; with Joe, some allegedly stuff, news-at-eleven… With Don, I get a sex abusing criminal. With Joe, I get more of the same, moderation in all things with a touch to the left. With Don, I get revenge and retribution as we pick up where 1.6.2021 left off.

    Reply
    • Jim lucas

      Wow Frank. You really are a dumb son of a bitch

      Reply
  5. Tom

    I think the only thing that matter is that those that do not like Trump are trying legal means to keep him off of the ballot. They are not storming their state capitals and rioting to keep him off of the ballot. The irony of it is that if he were to be kept off of the ballot, I think this would energize many moderates from both parties as well as most Independents to vote for the Republican Primary winner. Many Independents are hoping for a GOP contestant that is not Trump.

    Reply
    • frank stetson

      Heck, Trump probably does not want to run. As I said in the beginning of this round: he’s in it as long as the shills keep shoveling out those denotations. Once the court bills exceed the incoming, he’s off to Mar A Loser waiting for house arrest to kick in. Just wonder if he will count each golf course as part of his “house.”

      Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *