Tag: colorado
Lauren Boebert

Police Probe Boebert's Latest 'Physical' Confrontation With Ex-Husband

A Colorado police department is actively investigating "an alleged physical altercation" between US Representative Lauren Boebert and her ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, that occurred Saturday night, The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger exclusively reports.

A Boebert aide told Sollenberger, "Jayson Boebert had called the police to the Miner's Claim restaurant in Silt, claiming that he was a 'victim of domestic violence.' The aide emphasized that Lauren Boebert denies any allegation of domestic violence on her part, and that the events as depicted in social media posts on Saturday were not accurate."

The aide also confirmed "police did come" but no one was arrested, and "a friend drove Boebert home."

When Jayson Boebert spoke to the Beast about the incident, he said, "I don’t know what to say."

According to the report, the incident occurred when Jayson Boebert apologized to the GOP congresswoman following a prior incident, and asked to meet. Rep. Boebert agreed, but only if the meeting could take place in public — which led the former couple to "Miner's Claim, a restaurant in Boebert's small hometown of Silt."

The senior political reporter notes:

Inside, at the table, Jayson Boebert apparently started 'being disrespectful,' 'being an a**hole,' and getting 'lewd,' the aide relayed. The alleged behavior revolted Lauren Boebert, but that seemed to make her ex more aggressive, the aide said. There was then apparently a physical altercation of indeterminate severity.

Jayson Boebert 'made a motion' towards his ex-wife, 'to grab her.' It was 'an aggressive move, not romantic,' the aide relayed.

As Lauren Boebert described it, the aide said, she tried again to keep him back and in the process 'put her hand in his face, put her hand on his nose.' (The Muckrackers’ post describes a violent confrontation, with the congresswoman landing two punches on her ex’s nose. The aide said that Boebert maintains she didn’t punch him.)

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Ron DeSantis

DeSantis Tries To Go Both Ways On Colorado Ruling Against Trump

Following the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on that state’s primary ballot, Trump’s primary opponents trotted out the expected displays of umbrage. But while Vivek Ramaswamy moved swiftly into the lead as most sycophantic by demanding that everyone else also jump off the ballot, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has taken a different tack.

DeSantis has joined the rest in declaring his shock that state supreme court justices would try to do something so outrageous as enforce a constitutional amendment, but he’s also trying to use this moment as leverage against Trump. In what may be the best attempt to eat his cake and have it too, DeSantis is spreading a message that, sure, Trump has been wronged by those dastardly liberal judges. However, if Republican voters stick with Trump, things like this are sure to happen. So wouldn’t it really be better if they voted for DeSantis, who promises to be just as vile as Trump but comes without the courtroom baggage?

Then the man from Mouseland takes an enormous leap of logic. In DeSantis’ view, Democrats, judges, and the media are kicking Trump off the ballot … to help Trump.

DeSantis spent a portion of his Wednesday speech confessing his bafflement about how court hearings work and jumping into the proposal that red states should take President Joe Biden off their ballots as retribution for the Colorado ruling.

I mean, look, if somebody is convicted or something of some of these things, there was no trial on any of this. They basically just said, what, you can’t be on the ballot. I mean, how does that work? What’s the limiting principle for that? Why could we just say that Biden can’t be on the ballot because he let in 8 million illegals into the country and violated the Constitution, which he has? Can we just say, oh, well, they have money coming to Hunter or whatever?

All of these deep questions from DeSantis have answers. First, the Supreme Court of Colorado issued a decision because the watchdog nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed suit in a Colorado court and stayed with the case through a series of appeals. DeSantis might have noticed that many rulings on constitutional issues happen without a conviction being involved. Such as Republican efforts to crush health care. Or Republican efforts to end COVID-19 protections. Or Republican efforts to end environmental rules. People file suits. Courts make rulings.

The next part of DeSantis’ confusion also has a simple solution. What’s the limiting principle for knocking candidates off the ballot, and why can’t they retaliate against Biden because Hunter once paid him back for a truck? Because the 14th Amendment doesn’t cover repaying family loans, but it does say that no one can “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” if they’ve previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Insurrection. That’s the “limiting principle,” Ron DeSantis.

But DeSantis complaining about Trump being booted from the ballot is just a warm-up act. The point he really wants to get across to his audience is how all this is part of a scheme. A plot. A conspiracy. One that’s meant to keep DeSantis from heading the ticket.

”But here’s the larger thing. What the left in the media and the Democrats are doing, they’re doing all this stuff to basically solidify support in the primary for [Trump], get him into the general, and the whole general election is going to be all this legal stuff. And look, it’s unfair. They’re abusing power 100%.”

Get that? Democrats, including liberal judges, are conspiring with the media to kick Trump off the primary ballot so that Trump is sure to win the primary. “That’s what they want,” DeSantis said. What’s more, Colorado is not the end. According to DeSantis, “there’s going to be other supreme courts that are going to probably try to do this, too.”

And kicking Trump off more ballots is going to help Trump even more. It’s all a trap.

“So that’s what we be walking into and it’s not fair,” DeSantis said before finishing in a spectacular flourish of incomprehensibility before the silent gathering. “But that doesn’t give us our best chance to be able to win and to be able to do this. In a way. It’s a hard enough job as it is.”

The one thing DeSantis says in all this that overlaps with reality is that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have the final word on the Colorado ruling. If that ruling is broad, it could make any further actions around this issue moot. However, for now, other cases are moving forward in over a dozen states. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is charged with making decisions about who is eligible to appear on the ballot. Bellows has already heard arguments from both sides and is expected to rule before the end of the month. Suits in Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, and Wisconsin are currently in front of state courts.

As The New York Times reports, Trump’s legal problems have not reduced his polling so far. In fact, Trump’s lead over his primary opponents continues to grow even though the Times/Siena College latest poll shows over 58 percent of voters believe that Trump “committed serious federal crimes.”

It seems Republicans think it’s worse to be Ron DeSantis than a felon. It’s hard to fault them for that.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Why Won't Media Report Basic Facts About Trump's Colorado Ballot Debacle?

Why Won't Media Report Basic Facts About Trump's Colorado Ballot Debacle?

News organizations have a duty to get specific facts correct in their coverage of the explosive news that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for “overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection” on January 6, 2021. These facts include that Republican voters — not Democrats — were behind the challenge to Trump’s candidacy and conservative legal theorists supported it; that the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of insurrectionists from serving in federal office requires no conviction and is self-executing; and that Trump received proper due process throughout the district court trial and Supreme Court hearing.

Colorado Republican primary voters were the driving force behind the challenge to Trump’s ballot qualifications, and conservative legal theorists supported it

  • Six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two independents — sued to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot to ensure only “qualified candidate[s]” could receive votes. The New York Times reported that these voters “argued that Mr. Trump’s presence on the Republican primary ballot would harm them by siphoning support from their preferred candidates and, if he won the nomination, by depriving them of the ability ‘to vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.’” [The New York Times, 12/19/23]
  • Multiple conservative legal experts and scholars have argued that Trump is disqualified from the presidency. J. Michael Luttig, who co-wrote an essay in The Atlantic titled “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again,” formerly worked in the Reagan White House counsel’s office, clerked for conservative judges (including former Justice Antonin Scalia), and was appointed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George H.W. Bush. Two conservative law professors who published a paper concluding that Trump is ineligible to serve as president, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas, are both “active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.” [The Washington Post, 7/2/98; The Atlantic, 8/19/23; The New York Times, 8/10/23]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, requires no conviction, and applies to both insurrectionists and people who have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists

  • The text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment makes no mention of a conviction. The text reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, 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, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” [United States Congress, accessed 12/20/23]
  • J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe: “The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again.” They continued in their Atlantic essay, citing Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election: “Both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.” [The Atlantic, 8/19/23]
  • William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen argued that “Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress.” Their paper’s abstract adds, “It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.” [University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 8/14/23]
  • Baude and Paulsen also explained that Section 3 “in particular … disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.” The abstract adds, “Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as ‘aid or comfort.’” [University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 8/14/23]

Trump was afforded due process in the Colorado legal decisions

  • Trump’s team called on seven witnesses during a weeklong Colorado district court trial. According to The New York Times, Trump’s witness list consisted of former Defense Department chief of staff Kashyap Patel, former campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson, Republican activist Amy Kremer, Thomas Van Flein, who is the chief of staff to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Colorado Republican Party treasurer Tom Bjorklund, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), and law professor Robert J. Delahunty. [The New York Times, 12/19/23]
  • Colorado Newsline reported that the district court case included “more than 30 hours of evidentiary proceedings, witness testimony and closing arguments.” [Colorado Newsline, 11/17/23]
  • The district court verdict was appealed by both sides to the Colorado Supreme Court, which held a two-hour hearing during which Trump’s team was able to make its case. [Colorado Newsline, 12/6/23]
  • The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling concluded that the legal process that resulted in Trump’s barring from the primary ballot “provide[s] adequate due process.” [The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, 12/19/23]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Ginni And Clarence

Growing Pressure On Thomas To Recuse From Trump Cases (VIDEO)

The Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. When it gets there, Justice Clarence Thomas should not be allowed to participate in the court’s deliberations. That’s the message from retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, discussing the issue on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes Tuesday night.

“There should be only eight justices on the Supreme Court hearing this case when it comes up,” Cordell told Hayes.

I say that because Clarence Thomas has no business hearing this case. Why? Because his wife was a major player in the whole insurrection. And he should, he should, if he had principles, recuse himself. But I will guarantee you this: Clarence Thomas will recuse himself when Ginni flies.

That’s where Chief Justice John Roberts comes in: If Thomas won’t recuse himself, Roberts has to make it happen. That’s the message Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent to the chief justice on Tuesday. It was sent before the Colorado court ruled, but it remains relevant. The Democratic Judiciary Committee member urged Roberts to “take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Clarence Thomas recuses himself” from one of the other pending cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“The federal recusal statute requires that any ‘justice, judge, or magistrate judge … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Blumenthal writes. “In addition, recusal is required when a Justice ‘or his spouse … is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; [or i]s to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.’”

There’s precedent, as Blumenthal points out. Back in October, Thomas recused from deliberations as to whether the court should take an appeal from John Eastman, the architect of many of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election who was also a close contact of Ginni Thomas. That might be precisely why Thomas recused: The appeal was over the release of emails to the House Jan. 6 committee, and plenty of those emails would have been between Ginni Thomas and Eastman. With the Jan. 6 committee long disbanded, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and Thomas didn’t explain why he didn’t participate in that decision.

Blumenthal cited that recusal in his letter to Robert, saying it was “proper” and should be repeated, in this case regarding the pending case concerning Trump’s presidential immunity from prosecution. He wrote that considering “Mrs. Thomas’s involvement in challenging the 2020 election results, Justice Thomas’s impartiality in a related case ‘might reasonably be questioned,’ giving rise, at a minimum, to an appearance of a conflict of interest.”

House Democrats have also weighed in, directly asking Thomas to recuse. As Cordell says, he’ll do that “when Ginni flies.” Roberts needs to make it happen. As Blumenthal points out in his letter, Roberts and the court just made a big point of releasing a code of conduct, which they insist has been informally guiding the justices all along. As Blumenthal points out, though, it “very unfortunately does not provide any enforcement mechanism,” but “it mirrors the statutory standard for recusal.” If Thomas won’t do it himself, Blumenthal tell Roberts, “it is incumbent upon you to assure that the Code is followed to ‘dispel the misunderstanding’ that ‘Justices … regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.’”

That’s true for the immunity question. It’s true for this Colorado case and for any case coming to the court involving Trump’s—and Ginni Thomas’—efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.