by Ashe in America | Apr 19, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, House Republicans in the Colorado General Assembly attempted to impeach Secretary of State Jena Griswold. The effort ended as quickly as it began, with all eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voting against allowing the resolution to proceed.
The Impeachment Resolution charged malfeasance in office and accused the Secretary of weaponizing her office for political gain and to interfere in the upcoming election. The US Supreme Court’s 9-0 opinion on the matter proves that the Anderson v. Griswold endeavor was frivolous theater, but the entirety of the Centennial State establishment has circled the wagons to make the election interference appear to be a legitimate legal effort.
That is, the accepted truth among the Colorado establishment is that the entire US Supreme Court got it wrong. The mental gymnastics required here are astounding.
No one was under oath during the Griswold impeachment proceeding, raising foundational questions about its legitimacy. Also, why was this resolution allowed to be heard in the first place? Its greatest accomplishment was providing Colorado Democrats a platform to propagate their false reality.
For hours the eight committee Democrats screeched about “insurrection” and “democracy,” reaching a fever pitch when the Secretary’s four witnesses joined the chat. These witnesses patted themselves on the back for being nonpartisan and true “defenders of democracy!” Notably, two of her four witnesses are associated with leftist lawfare outfit Common Cause, and one of them was an attorney for the petitioners in the 9-0 case. The other is a county clerk who is rumored to be Jena’s chosen predecessor.
Another witness for the Secretary was Harry Dunn, the Capitol Police Officer that reportedly lied, under oath, during the J6 Committee hearings, about the death of fellow officer Brian Sicknick.
From Tucker Carlson: “There’s nothing wrong with asking for a moment of silence in memory of Officer Brian Sicknick, we welcome that. You are not supposed to lie in a congressional hearing, and he just did. There is zero evidence to support the claim you just heard that Officer Sicknick died from injuries at the Capitol. But of course, Harry Dunn just said it anyway.”
In January, Dunn was quoted in The Guardian, “Today, I’m running for Congress, to stop Trump’s Maga extremists and ensure it never happens again.” A glowing feature of Dunn in February in RollCall states, “Dunn hopes these voters will agree with him that the most important issue heading into the 2024 elections isn’t something as pedestrian as transportation funding or quotidian as the economy, but instead is the existential threat from the GOP’s MAGA wing.”
Did you hear that, Colorado voters? The threat of your America First friends, family, and neighbors is much more important than the open border, the fact that you can barely afford meat and milk, and the multi-front global war we’re paying for. Ignore all that and, instead, demonize your countrymen to help the regime keep its power.
Division is useful when your goal is to destabilize. It appears division is all these authoritarians have.
In addition to her witnesses, Secretary Griswold spoke in her own defense, whining about how fair she is and trying, again, to pretend that she was a neutral actor in the whole affair. Jena is committed to the hilarious narrative that she was just the respondent, doing her duty, defending democracy. As a reminder, Jena was running around the nation squealing that the top Republican Presidential candidate is an “oath breaking insurrectionist,” both before and after her fever dream was overturned 9-0.
She’s still doing it. During the hearing, the secretary claimed, “Colorado voters do trust me,” — to chuckles in the room and a hilarious response on X — and declared, “House Republicans are trying to impeach me for saying the undeniable truth, and I want to clearly say to the Republicans on this committee, Trump is an oath-breaking insurrectionist. He is a danger to our country and our democracy,” Griswold said. What a conspiracy theorist.
She continued, “I will not be stopped by this proceeding from doing my job and protecting our constitution and our democracy.” It’s glaringly obvious why no one was under oath.
The resolution failed, after hours of nonsense.
Be vigilant during the upcoming Election season, Colorado. The people running our elections equate “Our Democracy!” with a radically progressive elections agenda that prioritizes access and equity over accuracy and public trust.
And they will do anything to protect it.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica.
by Ashe in America | Mar 18, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
In 2016, Trump said, “We’re gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘Please, please, it’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.’ And I’ll say ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more.’”
He was roundly mocked for this statement over the years, as the war with the deep state played out before our eyes.
Who’s doing the mocking now?
On Monday, March 4, in a stunning rebuke of the Colorado Supreme Court, the Trump-deranged petitioners, and our crazy-eyed Secretary of State, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 9-0 to reverse the decision removing President Trump from the ballot.
The national reaction was glorious. Marc Elias was apoplectic that the court cut off additional lawfare angles for election interference. Keith Olbermann immediately cried out to dissolve the Supreme Court. Shenna Bellows of Maine immediately withdrew her unilateral “Trump ban,” and all other legal challenges on the 14A grounds were rendered moot.
Locally, Jena Griswold did a press circuit with zero self awareness about how embarrassed she should be and, in the days that followed, she tried to pretend like she wasn’t colluding with the petitioners to bring the case. In an interview with ABC News, Griswold stated:
“To be very clear on two issues: I did not bring this lawsuit. Actually, Republican and unaffiliated voters in the state of Colorado filed this lawsuit” — LOL — “because they believed it is not a good thing to have a disqualified candidate on a ballot that could lead to the disenfranchisement of unaffiliated and Republican voters. Second, I also think it’s noteworthy that I have always said that I will follow the Supreme Court’s decision. Fighting for democracy is never the wrong thing to do.”
It’s true that Griswold was the respondent, not the petitioner, in the case, but it’s hilarious that she thinks anyone believes she wasn’t in on the strategy. Also, “democracy” is newspeak for despotism.
The court ruled that the Congress requires implementing legislation to remove a Presidential candidate on 14th Amendment grounds — a move that was criticized by the four female justices in their concurring opinions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) immediately began working on such legislation. It’s doubtful Speaker Johnson would ever allow such a bill to hit the floor, so this is really just (another) coping mechanism for Democrats and other TDS sufferers.
The best part of the ruling is that the American People can clearly see the election interference.
How do I know that?
Well, the very next day, March 5, voters in 16 states, including ours, cast their ballots in Super Tuesday primary elections, and it was an absolute blow out. Trump took Colorado by 30 points, proving why the regime, via the petitioners, tried so hard to disqualify him.
Nikki Haley dropped out the next day.
Another highlight of Super Tuesday was the role that “uncommitted” voters played in the Democrat Primary. These totals passed 10% in some states, and, here in Colorado, totaled 47,640 voters, or 8.6%.
The “vote uncommitted” movement, a protest vote led by Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American Congresswoman, to show numbers and push Biden on Palestine. The uncommitted coalition’s numbers are problematic for Biden, especially considering RFK, Jr. will erode his support in November.
Primary turnout was 828,769 for the Republican ballot, and 540,481 for the Democrats, but many of those Republican votes may actually be Democrat voters crossing over for the open primary. That said, there is no shortage of Trump-deranged voters in the Colorado GOP.
Still, Trump may still win the Colorado electoral votes.
You will recall that, in 2020, the safest and most secure election ever — obviously — Colorado voters allegedly agreed to enter the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC). The NPVC is an agreement by several (16) states to award their state’s electoral college votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote.
President Trump may well win the popular vote in November. Trump had 47% of the popular vote in 2020 (allegedly), and this year there is a third party candidate. Despite what the Democrat pundits tell you, Trump has not lost support. That’s a very silly assertion that is not based in fact.
If Trump wins the popular vote, then Colorado — after fighting so hard to keep Trump off the ballot — will have to award their electoral votes to President Trump. Can you imagine?
So much winning.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica.
by Ashe in America | Feb 19, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
Oral arguments in Anderson v. Griswold took place on February 8th, and for the first time since the trial court, the public is speculating that this decision may be 9-0 for the intervenors — for Trump. The question before the court is:
Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in their ruling to remove President Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot?
As the party petitioning for Supreme Court review, President Trump’s attorneys went first, and they made multiple interrelated and distinct arguments for overturning the CO high court’s decision. The justices asked about the evidentiary record, specifically the lower court’s decision to admit the objectively biased January 6 Report and Professor Simi’s minority-reporting pseudoscience. The justices challenged many of Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell’s arguments, which he handled expertly.
The Colorado petitioners had a rough time during oral arguments, fielding tough questions from even the most liberal justices. Ketanji Brown Jackson pontificated about insurrection — but even she had real issues with petitioner attorney Jason Murray’s 14th Amendment argument. She single-handedly rebuked Murray’s talking points that the text of the amendment is unambiguous.
JUSTICE JACKSON: “But doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity? And this sort of ties into Justice Kavanaugh’s point. In other words, we had a person right there at the time saying what I’m saying, the — the language here doesn’t seem to include president, why is that? And so if there’s an ambiguity, why would we construe it to — as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out — against democracy?”
Murray’s response was a variation of “because we really want you to!” His case was revealed as hysterical nonsense about an insurrection that hasn’t been litigated, and the petitioners were exposed as calling on the court to usurp the powers of the state and federal legislatures.
Murray and the petitioners’ flimsy arguments that adorn this case were exposed and shredded by Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch had one of the toughest exchanges for Murray, who clerked for Gorsuch on the appellate court before clerking for Kagan in SCOTUS.
- MURRAY: “I’m imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was — you know, a — a president was elected, and they were, and they were ineligible to hold office —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “No. No.”
- MURRAY: “— but, nevertheless, they were put into that office —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “No. No. We’re talking about Section 3.”
- MURRAY: “And —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Please don’t change the hypothetical, okay?”
- MURRAY: “I’m —”
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Please don’t change the hypothetical. I know. I like doing it too, but please don’t do it, okay?”
Alito specifically dissected the inclusion of hearsay and criticized the findings of insurrection. Barrett focused on the Constitutional nuances of the arguments, as she usually does. Even Roberts and the leftie justices were conflicted by Murray’s arguments which, as I’ve discussed at length, comprise novel legal theory intended only to demonize and persecute President Trump and his supporters.
Secretary of State Jena Griswold was given 10 mins of time, which was argued by Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson. She objected to Justice Thomas, which was weird. Justice Roberts challenged her to defend the determination of “insurrection” and asked her to better define the standards. Stevenson struggled to articulate how a state disenfranchising just their own voters in a federal election — violating equal protections — can remain a constitutional act.
The one high point for Stevenson was that she urged the justices to review the findings of fact and conclusions of law with regards to “insurrection.” I have been consistently in favor of this request, as the evidentiary record does not hold up outside of the biased Colorado courts.
Justice Kavanaugh put a fine point on the lack of due process in this case, highlighting CO Justice Samour’s famous line in the dissent:
“There was no fair trial either … I have been involved in the justice system for 33 years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”
It’s unlikely that the high court will uphold the lower court’s ruling, but it remains unclear how far they will go with the insurrection findings.
The decision is expected quickly as many other states have similar cases in limbo, awaiting this decision, and clarity is required before the Colorado primary on March 5. As of press time, unconfirmed “leaks” claim that the decision in chambers was, in fact, 9-0, but we are unable to confirm prior to press time.
My key takeaway from the entire 14th Amendment saga is that it appears the Constitution is still in effect. What a welcome surprise.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Jan 19, 2024 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
The tone was set for the 74th Colorado General Assembly, when on its very first day, Palestinian protesters disrupted an official government proceeding with shouts for a ceasefire in Gaza. It’s unclear what the mob expects the Colorado state legislature to do about the war between Israel and Gaza, but you can bet virtue signals will decorate the 2024 session.
As Republicans have been impotent in the legislature for years, many of the GOP’s state reps find value in using the well to practice their messaging for the campaign trail.
House Minority Leader Mike Lynch attempted a commanding posture when he urged his colleagues to remember the people of Colorado, stating, “We are easily tempted to put party over the people and service takes a second seat to our personal ambitions.”
This is funny because Lynch’s personal ambition is to be my congressman in CD4. He faces a crowded field that includes a bunch of other establishment republicans as well as former State Senator Ted Harvey, entrepreneur Deborah Flora, and political newcomer Trent Leisy. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert entered the race as well for some unknown reason.
I had the opportunity to ask Representative Lynch some questions during an AssembleXCO space on X earlier this month, and he told me about his priorities for the 2024 session. The space is recorded, and you can listen at the link below. My discussion begins at the 45 minute mark. I’m one of the hosts of AssembleXCO, and we are interviewing all candidates and state figures who aren’t afraid to step into the arena. Follow the account on X at @AssembleXCO, and join the conversation!
Tell Me How You’re Different
“My biggest fight down there is with fentanyl,” Lynch said when I asked him about his legislative priorities. In terms of solutions, he spoke of increased possession penalties and strong deterrents. Tell me you’ve never met an addict without telling me.
When I asked him about his political calculus for prioritizing fentanyl over homelessness, taxes, the sanctuary crisis, and other important issues to Colorado voters, he said, “That’s an area that I’ve worked on my entire legislative career… but primarily, it’s because it’s killing people. It’s the one issue — you know, property tax is a pain in the butt, and it’s gonna run some people out of the state, but it’s not going to kill them.”
Suicide rates are at all time highs under Bidenomics and the current state government. I dispute the idea that the tax crisis isn’t going to kill people. It’s a contributing factor that already is killing them in the mental health crisis. I’d argue most Colorado voters would prioritize mental health and Colorado quality of life before criminalizing addiction and attempting, yet again, to win the war on drugs. Also, you can’t address the fentanyl problem without addressing the border and pretending you can is silly and wasteful.
For my last question set, I asked him pointedly, “Do you believe January 6 was an insurrection?” He said, “I do not,” but did not elaborate. When I asked him about the weaponization of government, he said he believed the real problem was that law enforcement has been too hamstrung because of, “the government taking away our ability to enforce laws.”
Oh dear.
I asked him about the JTTF and Rebecca Lavrens, the praying grandmother, being shackled in Denver, he told me of those federal and state collaborations, “I don’t really see that as law enforcement.” That’s more the agencies, he said, and we need President Trump to come back and fix it.
He’s the House Minority Leader in our state. What’s that old adage about evil and good men?
Back to the first day of the legislative session, “I implore you to remember it is not you that sits in those seats, it is the thousands of people who put you there. Those voices are important, as well,” Lynch said.
Those voices aren’t important “as well.” Those voices are important. The voices of those in the seats may be important “as well” but only inasmuch as they speak for those who sent them.
The Colorado primary will be conducted on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, with the 2024 Colorado Republican Assembly and Convention scheduled for April.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Dec 15, 2023 | Feature Story Bottom Left
ASHE IN AMERICA — OPINION
There are 22 states with 14th Amendment, Section 3 challenges to President Trump’s 2024 candidacy. Six states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and Rhode Island — have declined to prevent President Trump from being on the ballot.
Other challenges underway have yet to be decided: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
In Colorado, District Judge Sarah Wallace issued a criminal finding in a civil trial, prompting President Trump to appeal the judge’s seemingly favorable ruling. On December 6, 2023, the Colorado Justices heard arguments in the case from Jason Murray and Eric Olsen for the petitioners, and Scott Gessler for the intervenors.
There were two matters before the court:
- Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to the President?
- Was January 6 an insurrection?
Most of the time was devoted to the 14th Amendment with minimal time being devoted to the nature of January 6. There was extensive discussion about Confederate President Jefferson Davis; a tacit comparison of January 6 to the Civil War, which is appalling when you really think about it.
The biggest concern for Colorado Republican voters in this case is the matter of equal treatment. That is, if President Trump is allowed on the ballot across the nation, but not in Colorado, are Republican voters truly able to participate in the election. On this, Eric Olsen declared that President Trump is disqualified, because Judge Wallace said so, and that President Trump’s inclusion on the ballot would dilute the votes of Republicans.
“We’re worried about our clients, who are Republicans and Independents who filed the suit because they want a fair shot in the Republican primary to vote for a qualified candidate and have their support for a qualified candidate not be diluted through votes for a candidate who would definitely be disqualified,” Olsen said. “The pro-democracy, pro-Colorado voter perspective, which is, I think, what we’re looking at here” is to declare Trump ineligible before election, “so that the ballot reflects those who are qualified, and the will of the voter can be honored.”
Hearing Eric Olsen pretend to care about the rights of Republican voters, while unapologetically engaging in election interference against the most popular Republican candidate — by a wide margin — was particularly nauseating.
For his part, Scott Gessler briefly argued that J6 is more “properly categorized” as “a riot” than an “insurrection.” Unfortunately, one of the justices stated that, because Gessler didn’t brief the court on counter arguments about the insurrection, they don’t have much to go on, to dispute the District Court’s ruling.
My heart sank at this exchange, particularly because the insurrection findings were the entire reason for President Trump’s appeal. The Justice seemed to be implying that Gessler had dropped the ball on making the argument, and that may be enough wiggle room for the high court to uphold Wallace’s flawed decision.
What are the potential outcomes? There are several, and the case is expected to be appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
For the 14th Amendment, if the court upholds Judge Wallace’s determination that Section 3 of the 14th doesn’t apply to the President, then the petitioners will likely appeal.
For the matter of insurrection, if the court upholds Judge Wallace’s finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, President Trump and the GOP will likely appeal.
There is also the possibility that they will uphold one part of the ruling and overturn the other. For example, uphold that J6 was an insurrection and that President Trump incited it — and overturn Judge Wallace’s decision that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the President. Simply, they could decide to keep President Trump off the ballot.
Alternatively, the CO Supreme Court could uphold the 14th Amendment ruling but overturn the findings about insurrection. In my view this is the right call, but I am not holding my breath in the Colorado courts.
The appeals will move quickly. According to Secretary Griswold’s posted election timeline, citing Colorado statutes 1-4-1204(1.5) and 1-1-106(5), December 29 is the “Last day a person whose name has been certified to be placed on the ballot of the March 5th Presidential Primary.”
Stay tuned.
Ashe Epp is a writer and activist. You can find all her work at Linktree.com/asheinamerica
by Ashe in America | Nov 15, 2023 | Feature Story Bottom Left
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
