ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
The state of Colorado heard arguments of unprecedented lawfare in late October, in a lawsuit by six Colorado voters in September. The Colorado case was filed with the help of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and similar cases are being pursued around the nation. The inception of this novel legal theory goes back to 2021 and the 14Point3 campaign of Free Speech for People, a leftist lawfare outfit.
Notably, earlier this month, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a similar case, declining to become the first state in history to prevent someone from running for the presidency. Colorado has no such qualms.
The petitioners argue that President Trump is ineligible to hold office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The respondent in the case is Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who has declined to make arguments or present evidence in the case other than allowing Deputy Elections Director Hillary Rudy to testify on behalf of her office. Intervening on behalf of Colorado voters are President Trump and the Colorado GOP.
On day one of the trial, two former capital police officers were called, out of hundreds, and both have become influencers on the left in the years since J6. They were highly coached, and, like the J6 Committee, the petitioners declined to call former Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund.
Speaking of the J6 Committee, their highly politicized report comprises most of the evidence in the petitioners’ case, joined by a handful of witnesses — the two officers, Eric Swalwell, and two academics — and, of course, President Trump’s tweets.
The second day of the trial was surreal as the petitioners called sociologist Pete Simi who “specializes” in “far right extremism.” Simi testified that:
- Far Right Extremists are those who believe that corruption is a significant problem. Notably, according to the NY Times and Siena College, that includes 68% of the nation.
- Signs of escalating extremist behavior include posting in all caps on social media and speaking about 1776. Yes, really.
- President Trump knowingly incites violence using doublespeak; in other words, when President Trump says, “peacefully and patriotically,” he really means to incite violence — and far right extremists know this.
Simi presented no evidence of President Trump inciting anything. Rather, his testimony was that, in his expert opinion, the seemingly non-violent speech from the former president was secret coded messaging to far right extremists — which, again, he defined as people who are concerned about government corruption.
The second “expert” witness to testify was a self-described “Homeland Security expert,” though he admitted that he has never advised a government executive branch, state or federal, and he has never actually been in responsive position during a real crisis — but he has simulated a bunch of them in an academic setting. That is, the petitioners were unable to find a Homeland Security expert with actual experience to testify.
According to the petitioner attorneys, at least four witnesses decided not to testify since the start of the case, ostensibly to protect their credibility. The witnesses who did testify embarrassed themselves, revealed their politicization, and exposed their disdain for the Bill of Rights.
In a wild turn of events, a J6er named Treniss Evans has sued the petitioners, claiming that Olson and team doctored the timeline of events and defamed him — Evans — in the process. According to the filing, the attorneys altered timestamps of when Mr. Evans spoke to link him to violence at the Capitol. He has requested to intervene in President Trump’s case as well.
On the third day of the trial, the petitioners finished up and the intervenors — President Trump and the CO GOP — called Kash Patel as their first witness. Some excitement followed that made me part of the story, but that’s unimportant theater and will be dealt with accordingly.
The intervenors presented an ironclad case, meticulously refuting every claim by the petitioners. The judge is expected to hear closing arguments on November 15. The matter must be resolved by December 29, according to the Colorado election timeline, and whoever loses is expected to appeal.
The First Amendment and the Will of the People are on trial in this case. Every Colorado voter should pay attention.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
