Despite keeping him on the presidential ballot, a Colorado judge’s ruling could still prove “devastating” for former President Donald Trump, a former solicitor general has said.

Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said that a Colorado court finding that Trump engaged in insurrection against the government after the 2020 presidential election was “the very worst decision Trump could get.”

“There’s a factual finding that the judge said, which is that Trump committed insurrection,” Katyal said of District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling. “On appeals, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It’s almost impossible to overturn a trial judge’s factual finding.”

  • @Wooster@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    I read the article, but it fails to elaborate on how it’s a worst case scenario for Trump.

    How does Colorado finding Trump guilty of insurrection, but not barring him from the ballot, hinder him in any meaningful way?

    • The article is trying to articulate the doctrine of res judicata, which refers to the significance and deference given to the judge’s findings of fact as to whether Trump factually incited the mob and intended to disrupt the certification. It found that he did.

      As I understand, Trump is a party to the suit and the matter was fully litigated. Non-partys may now use this finding offensively such as in a civil rights case by the deceased capital police officers’ families. The issue of whether Trump incited the riot cannot be relitigate. He did, and other courts must now so find. The issue is precluded.

    • @Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Not a lawyer, and I agree the article is confusing, but my takeaway is that they will appeal to a higher court and the ruling will hurt him there? Maybe it hurts him in other states too. I think the point of the trial is to take this up to the supreme court, and whether he wins or loses, it was destined to escalate to that level.

      • If somebody wanted to press the issue a SoS in a state would just flat out say he isnt and force the Trump campaign to sue. Force the SC to take it up due to multiple, conflicting rulings/interpretations of the law. That might be the only way to ensure they do it in a timely manner.

        That said, i dont have much faith that the SC in its current composition wouldnt just side with Trump immediately.

        • There may be an injunction or protective order in another jurisdiction preventing additional states from publically releasing opinions on the issue. I think I heard that.

          • My understanding is that that applies to other state courts making rulings, but i cant see how that apples to apples to Secretaries of State deciding that he is an invalid candidate. Which is why it would possibly force the Trump campaign to sue and push to force the SC to rule on the issue one way or the other. Because if they dont then Trump could remain off the ballot in that state.

            • I happen to know there are states that have rendered opinions but which are not allowed to release them. I’m not sure why, though. Something about a pending case.

    • @Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Because the logic the judge used in his favor is that the US president is not an officer of the USA, and that’s a very flimsy argument that probably won’t stand up on appeal.

    • @Rusticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Because the legal reasoning for NOT barring him from the ballot is flawed (she claimed he’s not an “officer of the United States”) and will almost certainly be overturned on appeal and/or in the Colorado Supreme Court. In essence, the judge set the table for Trump to get screwed.

    • @dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe because Trump being an insurrectionist becomes an established judgement that can be citied in other cases?