Bill Barr: 'I strongly oppose Donald Trump' — but Colorado court’s ruling a 'grievance that helps him'

20 December 2023

Former US attorney general under Donald Trump, Bill Barr, shared his thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court's Tuesday, December 19 ruling, which will not go to the US Supreme Court. The court determined that Trump is unqualified from running for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which state's an "officer" who incites an insurrection cannot run for federal office.

Trump asked the high court on Wednesday to reject special counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite its decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution.

CNN's Jake Tapper asked Barr for his "initial reaction" to the Colorado court's ruling, which many critics have praised.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

"As you know, I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination," Barr said. "But I think this case is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law and taking hyper aggressive positions to knock trump out of the race, they are counterproductive — they backfire. As you know, he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen, this is gonna end up as a grievance that helps him."

Tapper noted, "The Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling based in part on the district court in Denver. The district court found Trump did engage in insurrection and this is what they said: 'Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. When the violence began, he took no effective action, disregarded repeated calls to intervene, and pressured colleagues to delay the certification. The court finds that the language Trump used throughout January 6, 2021was likely to incite imminent violence and therefore petitioners have established that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump speech.' Beyond the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, do you disagree with any of that?"

The former AG replied, "I disagree with the court's ability to make those findings. The core finding here is the denial of due process. To deprive somebody of the right to hold public office requires due process. It requires an adjudication of two core issues. One, was there an insurrection? Did the public disturbance rise to the level of insurrection? And Second, what was the role of the individual in there? What is engagement? Did they do something to break your oath of office? Those are complicated facts, and this was denied due process. It was a five-day hearing, there was no jury, it was before for the judge. They are not able to subpoena witnesses and compel the attendance of witnesses. They relied on the January 6th hearings which is mostly hearsay. There was no right to cross-examine during those hearings, and so forth. By the way, the three Democratic judges that dissented, their opinions I think are masterful. As they said the process here was procedural Frankenstein."

The CNN host then said, "So,I'm sure that if your friend Liz Cheney were here, she would say the January 6th hearings was not mostly hearsay, it was mostly witness testimony. But beyond that, let me ask you first of all, as a DC legal hand, how do you think US Supreme Court is gonna go with this? Will they take it up and rule against it?

Barr commented, "I hope they do take it up quickly and slap it down, because otherwise he could be left off the ballot in this primary."

Tapper then asked, "So, you're not even saying you disagree with what the Colorado Supreme Court found, you just think it's the wrong process? For instance, Jack Smith's trial, although he's not actually charged with insurrection."

Barr said, "Denial of due process is fatal here, but the 14th amendment is not something that can be applied willy-nilly by the states through ad-hoc proceedings. It was contemplated that the federal government set up the enforcement mechanisms, so you have a standard. You know what is the proof that's required? What is the procedure that's required? And hopefully, some the insurrection is. Now, we're gonna have those issues addressed, the federal investigation has not charged President Trump with insurrection or incitement. That's a trial that's gonna take place with due process, and that's gonna get into all these issues. What was his his state of mind? What were his actions? That is the proceeding where these things could be established."

The CNN host asked, "Would Jack Smith's case be relevant to a 14th Amendment challenge? In other words, even though Trump is not being charged with insurrection in that case, if trump were to be found guilty, if that were to happen, would that that be grounds for 14th amendment challenge in a state, you think?"

The former Trump official replied, "It could prompt that, but my own view of that is, the mechanism that's in place is charging him with insurrection or rebellion. And Congress did pass that after the 14th amendment. Congress passed two laws that were meant to implement it. One was the ability to remove someone from office and that was passed in 1870 and was done away with in 1948. And the other one was making it a crime to breech your oath and then hold another offense — to engage in rebellion in insurrection, and I think that's what would be required at this stage."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Fatal': Bill Barr suggests Colorado court’s ruling a 'grievance that helps' Trumpwww.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles