The movements in the courts to try to stop the overwhelming advance of Donald Trump according to the polls ahead of the 2024 presidential elections are intensifying. On the one hand, the first trial to determine whether the former president could be disqualified as a candidate began last Monday in Colorado. The plaintiffs, six voters supported by the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, allege that the former president could not run in the next elections in accordance with what is stated in the section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which declares ineligible that person who "has participated in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution that he had sworn to protect and respect. In addition, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is studying precisely whether Trump committed any crime or participated in January 6 and whether his actions could be classified as "insurrection," once again imposed a gag order on the former president, limiting his ability to develop normally his electoral campaign.
Any effort to keep President Trump off the ballot in Colorado or any other state are pathetic attempts at overturning the will of the American people.
It has become clear that lawfare will be the Left’s preferred method of battle in 2024 and our job is to fight back against it…
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) October 30, 2023
Colorado judges whether Trump's words before January 6 can be considered insurrection
The accusation in Colorado maintains that the actions of the favorite among conservative candidates before and during the first moments of January 6 deserve to be considered as support for an insurrection, which would make the former president ineligible, something that Trump's lawyers radically reject. During his initial intervention, one of the prosecution lawyers, Eric Olson, pointed out that what happened that day was "an insurrection against the Constitution and Mr. Trump participated in that insurrection." As evidence, Olson focused on the former president's speech to his followers on the morning of that day, which was followed by the protesters' entry into the Capitol. Olson also stressed that Trump did not call on the crowd to disperse for hours.
For its part, Trump's defense, who tried until the last minute to prevent the trial from taking place - even presenting on Monday a motion to disqualify the judge in the case for her donations to an organization that opposes Republican candidates in the state -, stated that "participating" in an insurrection requires something more than a "mere incitement through words." The lawyer who spoke on behalf of the legal team, Scott Gessler, insisted that the former president never called for violence but, in fact, urged his supporters to act "peacefully and patriotically." The defense also stressed that it would be "undemocratic" to deny him the opportunity to run and that there is no precedent for a court to consider a presidential candidate ineligible under the 14th Amendment.
Trump explodes against the reimposition of the gag order against him
However, the motion that really got on Trump´s nerves, was the imposition of a new gag order by the Washington judge in charge of studying the accusations of the special prosecutor Jack Smith against the former president precisely for his alleged participation in the events that ended with supporters of the former president inside the Capitol. Trump published a series of messages on Truth Social charging against this measure and denouncing that it is "third world electoral interference" orchestrated by a "very biased and Trump hating" judge, the DOJ and "crooked" president Biden.
According to Trump, the reimposition of the gag order "will put me at a disadvantage against my prosecutorial and political adversaries." Furthermore, the former president denounced that the measure "according to many scholars, it's unthinkable! It illegally and unconstitutionally takes away my First Amendment Right of Free Speech, in the middle of my campaign for President, where I am leading against BOTH Parties in the Polls," so he announced that he will appeal Judge Chutkan's decision.
