‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
[link removed] [[link removed]] John,

Last week, Donald Trump and his team filed their brief on the merits of his case – asking the Supreme Court to overturn our win in Colorado barring him from the ballot.

We just filed our response.

Below, we’re going to break down some of Trump’s claims, and how we’re responding. John, this is the very argument we’ll be bringing to the Supreme Court on February 8th.

We’ve won the fight to disqualify Trump from the ballot before, and we’re going to do everything in our power to defend that ruling. We’ve seen Trump get away with breaking the law and dodging accountability time and time again, and we can’t let it happen this time. We need your help to hold him accountable.

Please make a donation to CREW as we fight on the biggest stage to hold Trump accountable to our Constitution, and to disqualify him from the ballot → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]

Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]

Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]


Trump and his lawyers are using every tool in the toolbox to evade accountability. Trump’s only goal is to make sure that he remains on the ballot and can run for re-election. But the truth is, his arguments are flawed. Let’s dig into his brief, and explain a few areas where he goes wrong.CLAIM: Trump says that Section 3 does not apply to former presidents because they do not swear an oath “to support” the Constitution.
FACT: The president swears to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. By definition, one who “defends” something “supports” it. If anything, the president’s oath is more demanding than mere “support.”CLAIM: Section 3 doesn’t bar disqualified insurrectionists from the presidency.
FACT: Trump may claim that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency, but it’s plain and clear in the Constitution: the presidency is a federal “office” and the president is a federal “officer.”

The natural meaning of “officer of the United States” is anyone who holds a federal “office.” That plain meaning is confirmed by an opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, by authoritative attorney general opinions interpreting Section 3 at the time, and by consistent nineteenth-century usage of “officer of the United States” to include the president.

Given Section 3’s focus on insurrectionist leaders, it would make no sense to read Section 3 as disqualifying all oath-breaking insurrectionists except the one holding the highest office in the land.CLAIM: Trump says that he cannot have “engaged in” insurrection unless he personally committed violent acts.
Requiring the individual to personally commit violent acts would also defeat a core purpose of Section 3: to target leaders rather than foot soldiers. It would make no sense to adopt a legal standard that gives a free pass to people — like Trump — most responsible for an insurrection.

Saying that Trump’s violent rhetoric was “unlikely to incite imminent lawlessness,” even though Trump’s own words indicate he intended his supporters to march on the Capitol and even though they in fact did so, fails even the most forgiving of red-face tests.

The five-page “work of fiction” Trump offers to distance himself from the attack ignores the detailed 150 paragraphs of factual findings by the trial court and pretends damning facts don’t exist.

Trump intentionally gathered, agitated, and incited a mob, resulting in injury, death, and mayhem. The First Amendment does not protect such incitement to unlawful conduct.

John, it’s clear to see that Donald Trump is once again denying involvement in the insurrection. It’s his only way to attempt to avoid accountability since that law is clear that a disqualified insurrectionist cannot hold office.

But the facts are set in stone.

The United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack published a nearly 850-page report that accused Donald Trump of inciting an insurrection. The Colorado judge in our case found that Trump engaged in insurrection. Colorado’s Supreme Court removed Trump from the ballot for his involvement in the insurrection.

And once again, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, we will prove that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and that he must be held accountable.

But we need your help to do it. Please make a donation to CREW to help us in the most important fight we’ve ever taken on → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]

Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]

Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]


Thank you,

CREW
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add [email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2023
CFC 42218
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States