On the third anniversary of Donald Trump’s deadly Jan. 6 insurrection and multi-layered plot to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, the nation is confronted by a constitutional crisis in the 2024 election like no other in U.S. history. The former president, who faces 91 felony counts in four different cases — including four criminal charges related to accusations that he sought to subvert American democracy by trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden — is the frontrunner to capture the Republican party nomination for president.
Pro-democracy organizations, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have filed cases in several states calling for the disgraced former president to be barred from running for public office ever again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that was adopted in the Constitution after the U.S. Civil War. That provision bars from office any person who swore an “oath … to support the Constitution of the United States” as a federal or state officer and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion…”
The case filed by CREW in Colorado resulted in the state Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 landmark ruling that disqualified Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s GOP primary ballot — a decision that Trump’s lawyers have now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Dec. 28, Maine’s secretary of state also ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on her state’s GOP primary ballot. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Nikhel Sus, senior counsel and director of strategic litigation with CREW, who talks about the importance of the Colorado case and the issues under appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
NICKEL SUS: The evidence that we presented at trial showed that Trump had stirred up his supporters’ anger, mobilized them to come to Washington, D.C., that tens of thousands of his supporters did come to D.C. for Jan. 6 specifically with the intent to disrupt the electoral vote count. And then they did disrupt the electoral vote count after he held his rally speech and directed them to march on the Capitol.
And not only that, after he learned that the violence was ongoing, he sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m. at the height of the violence, calling out Vice President Pence and saying he didn’t have the courage to overturn the election. And the evidence that we presented at trial from multiple witnesses and government report showed that the President Trump’s tweet that he said when he knew the violence was happening measurably caused the mob to surge, it caused extreme violence at the Capitol after he sent that tweet.
And the video evidence shows that. The eyewitness testimony shows that. And then there is, you know, his inaction while the attack was ongoing for nearly three hours as well. That is really fundamentally the case, both his conduct leading up to and on Jan. 6.
However, I do think his public statements after the 6th do sort of confirm that he did mean to incite the insurrection on the 6th, because, you know, if it was an accident, you know, if he accidentally incited tens of thousands of people to attack the Congress, then a year later, once the the violence and destruction and death was widely reported, you would think that he would say, this is terrible and sort of distance himself from it.
But he’s done exactly the opposite. He’s called it a beautiful day. He’s expressed solidarity with the attackers. He’s called them hostages. You know, these are not the statements of somebody who accidentally caused an insurrection. So his post-Jan. 6 statements, I think, confirm that he meant to incite a violent mob attack on Congress.
And he did do so on the 6th.
SCOTT HARRIS: Judges on Colorado’s Supreme Court, as well as Maine’s secretary of State, have received death threats and harassment after they’ve announced their decisions on keeping Trump off the ballot in those two respective states. There are some who worry that keeping Trump off the ballot will, “tear the country apart,” apparently taking seriously the threat of Trump supporters’ mob violence to destabilize the country.
Are you worried that politicians here who are scared about the potential for violence could ignore provisions of the Constitution out of that specific concern?
NICKEL SUS: So I am concerned about that. I’m also concerned about the violence. I mean, frankly, you know, this is not something that government officials should have to worry about. They should not have to worry that they are going to face death threats for enforcing the Constitution. That’s despicable that that happens in our country. But, I mean, that’s why we’re here.
That is why we brought this case. It’s because Donald Trump deployed political violence in an attempt to invalidate an election, in an attempt to invalidate more than 80 million votes. It would have been the largest disenfranchisement in American history if it had been successful. And he tried to do that through violence. Since the 2020 election, we’ve only seen the threats against election workers and government officials and courts and other government officials that the former president has targeted increase exponentially.
And so the threat of violence caused by Mr. Trump’s words is very real and is a very real concern for all of us. But that being said, if we allow our enforcement of the laws and the Constitution to depend on sort of mob veto/mob rule, that’s effectively submitting to terrorism, that’s effectively giving up on our democracy under the threat of violence.
We accrue, we understand the risks associated with this effort, and we think abandoning our principles and abandoning our laws in the face of even the threat of violence is unacceptable. And as long as we have to have a Constitution, we have to defend it, even if it means dealing with these unprecedented threats. And so I hope that officials are not deterred from doing their jobs by the threat of violence in these circumstances.
But there is no denying that the threat is out there and that’s something that we have to be extremely vigilant about.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with Nikhel Sus (27:56) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the Related Links section of this page.
For the best listening experience and to never miss an episode, subscribe to Between The Lines on your favorite podcast app or platform: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Tunein+ Alexa, Castbox, Overcast, Podfriend,
iHeartRadio, Castro, Pocket Casts, RSS Feed.
Or subscribe to our Between The Lines and Counterpoint Weekly Summary.
