A Colorado judge has ruled the lawsuit to remove former President Trump from the Republican primary ballot can go forward because he’s accused of a crime that would disqualify him for the ballot, if found guilty.
Trump’s lawyers had asked the case to be dismissed, arguing this week that a state law shielded Trump under his free speech rights.
Nope, decided Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace.
Wallace ruled that “in short, it is in the public’s interest that only qualified and faithful candidates be allowed to seek public office,” and that an exemption to that law applied.
“It goes without saying that, in the abstract, ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates can seek to hold the highest office in the country, particularly when the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside, seeks to enforce an important right which confers a significant benefit to the public,” Wallace wrote.
Just like when the birthers claimed Barrack Obama was not born in the U.S., which would disqualify him from serving in office.
Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primary and was elected in 2007 but did not produce the long-awaited proof of eligibility until 2011.
Republicans did not take Obama to court to preclude him from being on the ballot, because accusations are not proof.
Or at least, it wasn’t back then.
Democrats have changed the rules, considerably.
Colorado’s hyper-partisan Democrat Secretary of State, Jena Griswold is named as a defendant in the case.
But she has no intention whatsoever of preserving the integrity of the ballot by permitting those who are eligible to appear, unless and until they are found guilty of this Civil War crime of insurrection and going to war against the Yankees for four years.
Or in Hillary Trump’s case, insisting he was cheated.
In a recent MSNBC interview, the Democrat showed her determination to ban Republicans from voting for Trump.
“Trump is a liar with no respect for the Constitution.”
“To say that a section of the 14th Amendment is election interference and considering how to uphold the Constitution is election interference is un-American,” she continued. “We know that the former president is a liar who will do everything he can to hold onto power.”
Griswold says she’s excited to have the court weigh in on her opinion and agree to ban the former president from running for reelection.
but thinks it’s a good idea for the court to agree with her so she will be the willing stooge to not fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.