Backstabbing former Attorney General Bill Barr has criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. Barr, a known critic of Trump, labeled the ruling as ‘Procedural Frankenstein’ and argued that the finding lacks legal credibility and constitutional backing.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6 disqualified him from the presidency, citing the 14th Amendment. The Amendment states that no one engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall hold any office. Trump’s campaign announced plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
It should be noted that Donald Trump has not been found guilty of anything related to January 6 in a court of law.
In a discussion with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Barr acknowledged his opposition to Trump’s nomination but argued that the Colorado case is legally flawed. He believes that such aggressive legal strategies against Trump could backfire, fueling his narrative of grievance.
“Well, as you know, I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, but I think that this case is legally wrong and untenable,” said Bill Barr.
“I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race, are counterproductive. They backfire. As you know, he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen, and this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him,” he added.
Tapper highlighted the district court’s findings that Trump incited violence at the Capitol. However, Barr contested the court’s capacity to make such determinations without due process, denying Trump a fair chance to challenge the allegations. Barr highlighted the absence of a jury, limited subpoena power, and reliance on hearsay from the January 6 committee hearings.
“I disagree with the court’s ability to make those findings. The core problem here is the denial of due process. To deprive somebody of the right to hold public office requires due process. It requires an adjudication of two core issues,” Barr said.
“One, was there an insurrection? Did the public disturbance rise to the level of an insurrection? And second, what was the role of the individual in there? Was it engagement? Did they do something to break their oath of office?
“Those are complicated facts, and this was denied due process. It was a five-day hearing. There was no jury. It was before the judge. They were not able to subpoena witnesses and compel the attendance of witnesses. They relied on the hearings, the January 6 committee hearings, which are mostly hearsay.
“There was no right to cross-examine during those hearings and so forth, as the dissent said. And by the way, the three democratic justices who dissented, their opinions, I think, are masterful. And as they pointed out, they said the process here was a procedural Frankenstein.”
Barr predicts that if the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to address the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, it would likely overturn the decision quickly. His criticism points to a fundamental denial of due process and a mishandling of the 14th Amendment which, according to Barr, requires federal enforcement rather than ad hoc state proceedings.
“I think if they take it up, they’re going to slap it down very quickly, and I hope they do take it up quickly and slap it down, because otherwise he could be left off the ballot in this primary,” said Barr.
“So if I’m hearing you correctly, you’re not even saying that you disagree necessarily with what the district court and then the Colorado Supreme Court found in terms of insurrection. You just think it’s the wrong process,” Jake Tapper asked.
“Legally, the denial of due process is fatal here. But as you alluded to in your opening comments, the 14th amendment is not something that can be applied willy-nilly by the states through sort of ad hoc proceedings. It was contemplated that the federal government set up the enforcement mechanism. So you have some standards,” said Barr.
The former AG also discussed the possible political fallout from the ruling. Barr implies the decision could generate chaos and inconsistency across states regarding the eligibility of national candidates, further emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rule of law and due process.
Post a Comment