Trump lawyer threatens prosecutions of Colorado judges — as they're bombarded with violent threats
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the two days since booting Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot in Colorado, the state's Supreme Court has faced a bevy of threats — including some from members of the former president's legal team.
During a Wednesday appearance on conservative network Real America's Voice, Jesse Binnall, an appellate lawyer for Trump, ripped the court's decision to disqualify the indicted billionaire based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who participated in an insurrection from holding federal office, agreeing with the host's suggestion that the ruling was a "huge judicial overreach."
Binnall accused the Colorado Supreme Court, other courts and prosecutors across the country of using their powers to "pursue a political agenda" in an effort to "destroy American democracy." He told the conservative network that a future Justice Department could punish the Colorado justices who voted to axe Trump with federal prosecution and civil rights laws, suggesting a "real" DOJ would take action against them and "other judges" if Trump won the 2024 presidential contest.
"What needs to happen is there are already federal statutes on the books about violation of civil rights and the color of law," Binnal said, per Raw Story . "Every single one of these people — when we actually have a real Department of Justice — should be held to account for their decision to throw our justice system into the fire, effectively, and leave the rule of law that has made our country so special over the years, and instead decide to make decisions based on politics and not the law."
Binnall added that "there needs to be accountability."
Threats against the Colorado Supreme Court justices have also run rife across social media since it handed down the decision, according to a report obtained by NBC News .
Nonpartisan nonprofit Advance Democracy, which conducts public interest research, identified "significant violent rhetoric" against the judges and Democrats, often in response to Trump's posts about the ruling on his Truth Social platform. The organization found that some social media users even posted information for the justices, circulating their email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses.
"This ends when we kill these f—kers," one user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that several Jan. 6 rioters have used.
"What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" another asked. "A good start."
Violent posts, whose images and links were included in the report, also named a number of methods that could be used to kill those perceived as Trump's opponents, including hollow-point bullets, rifles, rope, bombs.
"Kill judges. Behead judges. Roundhouse kick a judge into the concrete," read an alarming post to a fringe website. "Slam dunk a judge's baby into the trashcan."
The threats follow a predictable pattern, one often seen after Trump is dealt a legal blow.
After the FBI searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort club in Florida, a man who had been seen at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, attacked the FBI field office in Cincinnati with a nail gun while holding an AR-15 style rifle. Following a Georgia grand jury's indictment of Trump, some of his supporters posted the grand jurors' addresses online. Other members of his base threatened U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan when she was assigned to oversee the former president's federal election interference case.
A federal appeals court acknowledged the pattern when deciding to uphold but narrow a gag order against Trump in that federal case this month, noting that those he publicly targets are often threatened and harassed.
Daniel J. Jones, the president of Advance Democracy, told NBC News that the consistency of the violent threats and rhetoric was of special concern.
“We are seeing significant violent language and threats being made against the Colorado justices and others perceived to be behind yesterday’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling," Jones, a former FBI investigator and staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the outlet in a statement.
"The normalization of this type of violent rhetoric — and lack of remedial action by social media entities — is cause for significant concern," he added. "Trump’s statements, which have sought to delegitimize and politicize the actions of the courts, is serving as a key driver of the violent rhetoric. Political leaders on both sides of the political aisle need to speak out against these calls for violence, and social media platforms need to reassess their role in hosting and promoting this rhetoric.”
Trump attorney Alina Habba, however, added to the pile-on of the Colorado justices on Wednesday.
Habba decried the ruling as "not a constitutional decision" and asserted that it "will be overturned by the Supreme Court" in an interview with Breitbart News Daily .
“I have no question in my mind," added the lawyer, who has served as an attorney in Trump and his adult son's $250 million civil fraud lawsuit from the New York attorney general. Habba echoed Binnall's allegation that courts and prosecutors are making an effort to stop Trump's 2024 electoral bid by any means necessary.
“I find it ironic that there’s a Jan. 6 charge pending, but due process doesn’t matter because Colorado’s liberal judges want to take him off the ballot because they can’t beat Biden in the ballots,” she told Breitbart.
She further accused the four judges who voted to block Trump from the primary ballot of seeing themselves as “pioneers for the liberal radical left,” arguing their attempt to elevate themselves will backfire.
“You’re not a pioneer," Habba said, referring to the Colorado justices. "You’re going to look ridiculous. You do not understand due process. You do not understand the Constitution. You are literally a state-level court that is going to look ridiculous, okay, when the Supreme Court — whether you’re a federal judge or a state judge — when the Supreme Court overturns you, that’s not a good look."
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
America, the shining city on the hill, is a laughing stock. Thank you Donald Trump.
Sounds like things an average lib would say. Trump's the victim here. A bunch of allegations and no due process amounts to interfering in an election. Do you realize if this abuse of the court's power were to stand, it could also be used against the left. Trump never has been indicted or convicted of inciting a insurrection or committing treason. It's the actions of the radical left that has made the US a laughingstock.
This is the problem; this is why Trump is the likely GOP nominee instead of a halfway decent human being. People ignoring what Trump has done and instead (utterly absurdly) declaring him a victim.
Trump does not need to be indicted or convicted of inciting an insurrection to rule on this. The court need only find that Trump's actions met the intended meaning of 'insurrection' as used in Section 3 of the 14th. Legal guilt of insurrection is not required since that is not the question. The question (the ruling) is whether Trump is eligible to be the PotUS.
So even if he goes to court and is exonerated, this would still stand?
Who is defining the meaning of insurrection?
What would happen is that this would be appealed under the grounds that he was legally deemed to have not engaged in an insurrection.
Note also that the Colorado supreme court has included a mechanism to act should the SCotUS override them.
Exonerated how? It is already (been) in court as judges are ruling already. Of course, this is a matter of MAGAs questioning everything and never being satisfied with the answers when they do not work in MAGAs favor.
The court at hand. That is how our process works. Each court considers the specifics of the case, the applicable law (including the CotUS), historical precedent, the precise usage of English words, methods of exegesis for ancient law, and makes a ruling.
Higher courts may disagree with the ruling. And, here, they may determine a different meaning of 'insurrection' given law, precedent, etc.
This ends with the SCotUS.
Curious as to what that mechanism is.
So you would agree if a suit to remove Biden from the ballot for providing "aid and comfort to our enemies" could be considered by the courts using the same methods.
If the suit has merit, I would agree to it being considered by the courts. Biden is no more special than any other president under the rules and protocols governing presidential actions/activities/policies.
If the SCotUS takes the case, the have specified that their ruling is stayed. If not, their ruling goes into effect.
In 2011 Trump wanted Barack Obama , who was already the president, kicked out of office on the (imaginary) basis that he was constitutionally ineligible to be president due to his birthplace.
In 2016 Trump said Hillary Clinton "should not be allowed' to run for president due to her email situation.
In 2016 Trump wanted Ted Cruz disqualified from the ballot in Iowa because he was born in Canada.
Go cry "Trump is a victim" somewhere else.
What is the impact of Trump not on the primary ballot in Colorado?
If Biden violated his oath by providing aid and comfort to our enemies then he would be subject to the same rules.
Why do you always do this? You continually ask the obvious question thinking (apparently) that my answer changes if it applies to Biden vs. Trump. It never does change, but you keep trying to find hypocrisy that does not exist.
Learn this, Goosie. I do not care which party is involved. I care about the actions taken by politicians.
If the SCotUS hears the case, Trump will be allowed to be on the ballot in Colorado pending the SCotUS determination.
So it seems that they knew the US Supreme Court would overturn them, so they inserted an out to cover their asses,correct?
Go cry “whatabout this and whatabout that” somewhere else.
Some of these people will be defending Trump when the last shovel of dirt comes down on their casket 20 or 30 years from now, or whenever. Trump has ruined people's ability to think.
They knew that the SCotUS could overturn them.
They inserted mechanisms to gracefully cooperate with that.
They also explicitly stayed their ruling if the SCotUS even takes the case.
So not only are they aware (as any adult with a functioning brain would be) that the SCotUS can and might override them, they greased the skids to make compliance go smoothly.
Demonstrably.
There is no evidence of insurrection. Please provide proof of organized and active planning to overthrow what was at most a ceremonial function. What specific words and actions amount to Trump's inciting violence and insurrection. There was a never a doubt that Biden won the election and would be certified as having received the most electoral votes.
Also don't forget that during the entire process in Colorado, Trump's lawyers never made the claim that Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection. Their defense was that he was not an officer of the United States and that he never took an oath to protect the Constitution.
Your denial is part of the problem.
So you now provide the only definition of 'insurrection'? Is this the definition the SCotUS must use?
The meaning of 'insurrection' as it applies to this ruling is part of what the court determines. Not you.
Entirely irrelevant. If a robber fails to rob a bank, the attempted robbery is still a crime.
So they didn't think their ruling would stand, and were just were perverting the legal systmem to make some kind of stupid political statement?
Your comment is at best intentional gaslighting. But I think there is more to it than that.
-
The PURPOSE of the Jan 6th gathering at the capitol was not to "protest", it was to "stop the steal". That could not be done from outside the building but it might be done from inside the building if they caused enough chaos and fear. A violent mob tried to bash down the door that led directly to the floor of the House. The door was locked and barricaded. One of the fanatics lost her life at that spot.
One of the many issues SCotUS will have to address is whether the Colorado procedure, under their state law is adequate for determining whether candidates are qualified, is appropriate for the kinds of questions that have to be addressed here. This is about age, citizenship or legal residency questions. Are the procedures in Colorado, as in most states, very short for quick resolution? Is that adequate for defining insurrection, and Trump’s role.
You do not even conceive of the idea that they knew that they are a state supreme court and that the SCotUS has the ability to overturn their ruling???
Instead you run to the truly absurd and presume they are just making a gratuitous political statement that will then be overturned to their embarrassment??
A little advice: go with the more likely scenario when dealing with unknowns. Intelligent human beings (i.e. these judges) typically do not risk looking foolish if they have nothing to gain.
The Colorado SC went into great detail about what an insurrection is by definition, and how Trump's conduct fit that bill.
You should reread the Colorado finding, pg 96 deals with his insurrection defense, other pages include multiple arguments other than being on Officer of the US. Did you just skim read or haven’t you read it at all?
Those defending Trump do not, in my opinion, care how ridiculous are their claims. Realistically, the only choice they have is to:
To use Trump's phrase, 2024 "will be wild".
Great detail? 4-3 vote or 42% dissented on definition of insurrection, whether the compressed timeline allowed for due process on these us Constitutional questions and whether the state law gave them the authority to make this decision.
Im not calling the the majority of 4 stupid, but at least 3 or 4 other states have looked at this and demoted and in Colorado you have a 4-3 decision among 7 Democrats appointed judges. A lot of meat for a close, detailed look by SCOTUS.
I don’t want Trump as President, over the next year, as this plays out, I think they have helped him.
Unfortunately true.
Yeah, I actually looked at the decision.
Of course they helped him. Obviously every move against Trump by the 'establishment' is translated into a bump for Trump (too many clueless and/or conspiracy-ridden voters).
Don't forget that these are human beings who have legitimate concerns for their safety if they vote against Trump.
I did too, including the three dissents. Most commenting have by I read the Col decision and read both the Disqualification and Insurrection sections of the US Constitution. From comments on either side, it’s clear that we are in the minority on actually reading before commenting.
Good point, I haven’t disparaged their view although I disagree with it legally. I hope Trump is disqualified for office, but I don’t think that will happen.
I agree that this is unlikely to occur, due more to politics than constitutional law.
I only disagree in that the ambiguity in the federal law and very limited precedent favors Trump regardless of the politics.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Good advice for seeing your comments.
I do not see it that way. As PotUS Trump blatantly violated his oath by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and violate the foundation of democracy —the vote of the electorate— through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement.
His complicity in the Jan 6th insurrection is supported by overwhelming evidence.
What an excellent case in which to find a former PotUS ineligible to hold office because he has already demonstrated that he will break his oath of office and, in his case, do so merely because of ego.
Stated differently, if Trump should be trusted to keep his oath of office then what would someone have to do before they forego their ability to hold office?
I don’t disagree with the reality of what you describe only the reality of our current law.
Do you not think that the applicable law was meant to prevent those who have demonstrated they will violate their oath of office from holding office?
I have very mixed feelings about that. On the one hand it would mean he would not be president. On the other hand I would rather see the republican party move away from him on their own and not be forced to. People that are forced to do things can be irrational. Heaven forbid Vivek Ramaswamy becomes the new Trump.
I completely agree, this will only enlarge the terrible partisan divide that plagues our country.
Me too. But clearly that is not going to happen. The GOP is already irrational and this is not going to change substantially until a few years after Trump is a memory.
IMO
While I don’t disagree, it should be noted that the Colorado cause was initiated by some Col Repub registered voters.
I still hold out hope. If a couple of the others would bow out and put their support behind Haley there may be a chance. I think many establishment Republicans will have no problem moving away from Trump if there looks like a viable option. Of course it is just an opinion, or concern, that if Trump is forced out his die hard supporters will look for a Trump replacement and we end up where we are, only with a younger version. Vivek Ramaswamy or heaven forbid Matt Gaetz come to mind.
They have already, per the polls, moved from viable options and are going with Trump (many, I suspect, due to momentum).
Nikki Haley is a viable option. She represents the best chance for the GOP to get back on track. Not only that, I believe she could win the presidency if given the opportunity. Not only does that free us of Trump and Biden (and Harris) but it gives the GOP the distinction of the first female PotUS.
But. No. The GOP is almost certainly going to nominate a traitor instead.
Good to know that if Biden behaves the exact same way, you will defend him on principle.
Yes, but laws are always clearly written.
That is why we have legal scholars and judges.
I'm curious as to why you did not post this, or something similar, when Supreme Court Justices that leaned right received the same exact threats against them, with one showing up armed to the house of Justice Kavanaugh. s/
Is it illegal to carry a gun now?
Would you consider it a threat if someone you didn't know showed up with a gun and broke into your house?..
They broke into his house, and they were carrying a gun? I was just told they showed up in the street....which is legal.
Did I say he did?
Exactly, it’s why no one wants to immigrate here anymore.
Put these idiots who are calling people out with threats of violence in jail and throw away the 'key.' Make a few example of these bad actors and the rest will get the 'message' they clearly have not gotten so far. Go to jail villainous 'clowns' making threatening calls!
Just out of curiosity were you saying that about the people who went to Justice Kavanaugh's house?
Yes. But, nobody asked me for my opinion at the time and so I did not have to share it. To be clear, anybody who is breaking the law deserves to be arrested. Now then, you have yet to mention or supply what activities the people who went to Justice Kavanaugh's home caused which rose to the level of breaking the law. Simply being there may require a policing action, maybe, but it is up to a DA to determine if charges can or will be brought by him or her. Just being on the scene of Kavanaugh's house may be disturbing to the homeowner (rightly so) but is it a threat or violent act. . . you tell me if it is or not!
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, 18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Well, there you go: Get the DA to file charges on 'em!
Unremarkable supposing. I thought you were above suppositions.
Sadly for you, I am pretty sure Google will not explain why the Fact 'guy' on NT is "suddenly" a supporter of SUPPOSING/SUPPOSITIONS.
Just the facts, 'fact-guy' that's what we want/need from you since it is what you demand from others on a repeating basis. Anything else out of you is well. . .supposition **sputter**.
Good. Less suppositions from the 'fact guy' will improve your 'brand.'
I think that's suppositories
If Trump gets elected again, he is going to make Robespierre look like a piker.
Then the remedy for such a misadventure will be to not let/help Trump get elected! The time as come to make a positive political choice that does not include people who tell us (all) to our faces that we WILL be DISRESPECTED and SIDELINED for the benefits of MAGAs! Should Trump possibly become president again: We all become MAGAs - even while we kick and scream about it! Don't let it occur!
Any tools protesting and threatening violence if front of their homes yet …… oh wait, that’s just leftist loons on SCOTUS judges.
Right wing freaks just shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics.
Meh, left wing freaks like lawless chop zones, looting, flash mobs, shooting up softball games and throwing their piss on people ….. keeping it classy like usual ….
Yeah, we get it. Murdering doctors and bombing clinics is no big deal. Just standard stuff for "classy" people.
Your words not mine and even a good attempt an ad hominem attack. [deleted]
Exactly, only classy people storm the capitol building and piss and shit on the floors of the people's house.
This is how people in third world garbage dumps behave. I guess that is the future some of trumps supporters want for us though.
They try there and then they just disappear. In this country we pander to knuckleheads who act like that. Much different.
What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" another asked. "A good start."
A decades old joke is national news?
how many actual threats were identified by the Denver police?
What a lame question. This "protectionism" of all things Trump is pathetic. Trump 'overloads' his mouth and ass and team Trump gets a 'case-load.'
Threatening a judge is illegal. How many were charged?
according to the news report I saw, the Denver police identified zero actual threats.
Oh, so that must mean its okay. So if no one is prosecuting those officials who are taking Trump through the court system then it must be legal to do so. Got it! Aye, Sir!
Such BS. When I started sharing online, I never dreamt I would actually have to deal with this level of ridiculous thought processes from some of our fellow citizens. Yet, here we are.
Go ahead: Declare "Victory!" And move on to 'own' the next liberal in line! /s
Okay. I'm sure you think that's some sort of point.
Such BS.
Very predictable that you claim it's the Denver Police that lied and not the clickbait that got you all riled up.
Just declare, "Victory." You win! /s
the colorado state patrol handles threats against elected officials, along with the CBI and FBI. try focusing on blessing same sex catholic marriages, there must be a huge backlog by now.