Trump's Lawyer Admits We're All 'Making It Up' in Courtroom Clash over Insurrection Definition
In a Colorado courtroom clash that unfolded on Wednesday, Donald Trump lawyer and former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler made a startling statement, stating that "we're all sort of making it up at the end of the day."
The remark came during a heated dispute over the definition of the term "insurrection" in an ongoing legal battle that questions Trump's eligibility to serve as president again.
The case, currently being heard by the Colorado Supreme Court, revolves around appeals against a lower court ruling that argued Trump's engagement in the events of January 6, 2021, constituted an "insurrection."
The lower court ruling sparked a legal debate, as it concluded that while Trump may have been involved in insurrection, the Constitution's 14th Amendment does not specifically cover serving as president.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed in multiple states, aiming to remove Trump from primary ballots under the 14th Amendment. Former federal prosecutor Adam Kamenstein described the case as "compelling," while Trump himself has labeled the lawsuits as "election interference."
Both the initial applicants, a group of Colorado voters, and Trump's legal team are appealing the initial Denver District Court judgment released in November. The complainants argue that Trump is ineligible to serve as president again, while Trump's team disputes the earlier ruling that he was "engaged in insurrection."
During the courtroom proceedings on Wednesday, Trump's lawyer Scott Gessler clashed with Justice Richard Gabriel, one of the Colorado Supreme Court justices overseeing the case, over the definition of insurrection.
Gessler argued that for an act to be considered insurrection, it must have a substantial duration, geographical scope, and a goal of nullifying all governmental authority in an area.
Justice Gabriel challenged Gessler's interpretation, citing Webster's Third International Dictionary, which defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." Gessler responded by referencing the attorney general's briefs and the historical record, stating that everyone involved in the case is "sort of making it up" at the end of the day.
Gessler further contended that the events of January 6TH should be classified as a riot rather than an insurrection. He noted that the Trump supporters who stormed Congress did not deploy firearms and argued that the level of force used did not reach the threshold required for an insurrection.
READ MORE:
COLORADO SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP'S ELIGIBILITY UNDER INSURRECTION CLAUSE
OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE IS THE LATEST SOS TO JOIN BRIEF SUPPORTING TRUMP IN COLORADO BALLOT CASE
However, Justice William Hood challenged Gessler's position, pointing out that around 170 police officers were injured during the events and highlighting the use of makeshift weapons that caused significant damage.
As the Colorado Supreme Court weighs the arguments presented by both sides, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Trump's political future and the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.