Trials, Tribulations & a Long Train of Abuses

Examining the True Threats to Our Democracy

Jan 10, 2024

Coming in with a bang, 2024 is already in full election mode.

But full election mode is on steroids this year, as the volume of legal cases and other (baseless) claims against President Trump and his supporters are unfolding in parallel with the organized chaos of a typical Presidential Election Year.

This is unprecedented, and is further evidence of all the communism currently embedded in and resurfacing within our nation.

In this piece, I will lay out the various lawfare campaigns currently in the offing against (former) President Trump and his supporters, and provide commentary and details to help shed light on this pivotal theater in the Info War.

As you navigate the dates in this piece, remember that Super Tuesday primaries, which involve a number of the states below, arrive on March 5, 2024.

‘There’s No Evidence of Election Fraud’

On January 2, President Trump released an anonymous report that summarized evidence of 2020 election fraud in five battleground states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Sourcing of the claims made for each state are detailed in the footnotes, and the totality of the evidence and circumstances reinforces that 2020 was not, as environmental scientist-turned-lawyer Chris Krebs claims, the safest and most secure election in history.

The report is concise and fact-based, and will likely be submitted in many of 45’s trials. And there are many trials.

‘Let’s Whiteboard This’

As I’m predominantly focused on the 14A challenges, I was thrilled when Just the News published a helpful calendar comprising, “The busy legal schedule (of) cases in which Trump is a criminal or civil defendant.”

I will summarize the important (known) dates below for our purposes:

Chutkan (1:23-cr-00257-TSC-1)

In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit criminal proceeding against 45, oral arguments on President Trump’s appeal of Judge Chutkan’s ruling against the “Presidential Immunity” defense took place Tuesday.

From CNN:

“Trump’s lawyers argued that his federal election subversion indictment should be dismissed because he is immune from prosecution. But the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel questioned whether this immunity theory championed by Trump’s lawyers would allow presidents to sell pardons or even assassinate political opponents.”

The discussion was interesting, though, and is relevant to many of the cases on this list.

Check out this exchange published in the CNN article linked above:

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six?” Pan asked.
“Judge asks if a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a rival…
‘He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,’ Sauer said.
‘I asked you a yes or no question,’ Pan said.
‘If he were impeached and convicted first,’ Sauer replied, later insisting that the ‘political process’ of impeachment ‘would have to occur’ before any prosecution could be initiated.”

What an interesting thing to ask…

The hearing came as Judge Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith were allegedly swatted in recent days, and the media is blaming “election denial,” because of course they are.

Chutkan’s current ruling is held in abeyance, or legal purgatory, until the appeal is adjudicated.

Engoron (NY Case No. 2023-05088)

In the NY Civil Fraud case, the one with Judge Arthur Engoron, final briefs following trial evidence were also due to the court on Friday, January 5th. Closing arguments are anticipated tomorrow, Thursday, January 11.

Judge Engoron has already ruled in favor of the top claim, and he is expected to issue a ruling and decide on monetary damages for the remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records by January 31st.

McAfee (GA Indictment No. 23SC188947)

On Monday, January 8th, all motions except those in limine were due for most defendants in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

On August 5th, Judge Scott McAfee, a lifelong Georgian and former inspector General, is scheduled to hear opening arguments in this trial — in which President Trump is charged with 13 counts and in which 18 other defendants are implicated.

Cannon (9:23-cr-80101-AMC)

The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case in the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida West Palm Beach Division continues as, on Tuesday, January 9th, the joint discovery status report was due to Judge Cannon.

The trial is currently scheduled for May 20th, though there is an outstanding motion to continue.

Kaplan (1:20-cv-07311)

The Iowa Caucuses are January 15, and, the next day on January 16th, lawyers for President Trump are back in court for the damages-only trial for E. Jean Carroll in the Southern District of NY (1:20-cv-07311).

Hellerstein (1:23-cv-03773)

The lesser-known NY Civil case on election interference is scheduled to begin on Monday, March 25, 2024.

This case was remanded from SDNY to the NY Supreme Court in November, with Judge Hellerstein ordering:

“Trump has failed to show that the conduct charged by the Indictment is for or relating to any act performed by or for the President under color of the official acts of a President. Trump also has failed to show that he has a colorable federal defense to the Indictment.
For either or both of these reasons, the People's motion to remand the case is granted. The Clerk shall remand the case file to the New York Supreme Court, New York County.”

A hearing on motions, including dismissal, is scheduled for Thursday, February 1.

In addition to these cases, which are unprecedented for a former president and could be rightly considered an effort to influence or interfere with an election, the ballot challenges continuing across multiple states are overt, direct election interference by uniparty government officials and progressive lawfare NGOs.

‘You can’t vote for disqualified candidates …’

Challenges to President Trump’s qualifications for the ballot continue around the country, with most focused on the CO challenge, which is before the Supreme Court.

Oregon

Earlier this week, parties in the Oregon 14A challenges filed supplemental briefing on plaintiffs' standing and Oregon Secretary of State's authority to remove 45 from that state’s ballot.

Maine

The end of the month sees a flurry of deadlines in Maine. The last day for the Maine Superior Court to issue a written decision on any specific motion is January 17, which can be appealed by January 20.

January 31 is the deadline for their final decision on Trump’s ballot access in the Pine Tree State.

Colorado

Near and dear to my heart is the Colorado ballot access challenge, largely because I am a Colorado voter, but also because I was doxxed by petitioner counsel, former AG Senior Solicitor Eric Olsen during the trial court proceedings.

On Friday, SCOTUS agreed to take up the challenge, announcing that it would hear arguments on the matter in early February, which is notably during the primary season. The case is set for oral arguments on February 8, 2024.

The CO GOP petition is so well-written, I almost can’t believe Chris Murray wrote it.

Murray is the CO GOP attorney that works for Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Shreck (BHFS). BHFS is the registered lobbyist for Dominion Voting Systems. Things are weirdly incestuous in our elections industry, and it would be great if we could strip the special interests and profit motivations and return to precinct level elections controlled locally.

All that is to say, I’m still a little surprised Murray and BHFS are fighting this case, but anyone will do a better job than attorney Scott Gessler, who failed to argue against the petitioners’ insurrection claims. Murray is crushing Gessler’s prior two failures with his argument seeking SCOTUS review.

‘I’m just gonna write Trump in!’

Last weekend, hysteria reigned (again,) with viral clickbait, peddled by some big name accounts, claiming that Jena Griswold said she wasn’t going to count Trump’s votes.

She didn’t say that.

And I really hate it when conservative ‘influencers’ make me defend Jena Griswold.

What the crazy-eyed Secretary did say is that if the US Supreme Court decides that the Colorado court did not err, upholding their decision to remove President Trump from the ballot, then he would be disqualified and his votes would not count.

Breaking! Jena Griswold said she is going to follow the law.

As I’ve been saying, the communists are way ahead of us in the Centennial state. Colorado law states that only ballots for “qualified” candidates can be counted. This is not new. Colorado Revised Statute 1-4-501(1) states:

“(1) No person except an eligible elector who is at least eighteen years of age, unless another age is required by law, is eligible to hold any office in this state. No person is eligible to be a designee or candidate for office unless that person fully meets the qualifications of that office as stated in the constitution and statutes of this state on or before the date the term of that office begins…”

Further, 1-4-501(3) states:

“(3) The qualification of any candidate may be challenged by an eligible elector of the political subdivision within five days after the designated election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The challenge shall be made by verified petition setting forth the facts alleged concerning the qualification of the candidate and shall be filed in the district court in the county in which the political subdivision is located. The hearing on the qualification of the candidate shall be held in not less than five nor more than ten days after the date the election official's statement is issued that certifies the candidate to the ballot. The court shall hear the testimony and other evidence and, within forty-eight hours after the close of the hearing, determine whether the candidate meets the qualifications for the office for which the candidate has declared…”

This process was followed and, however unlikely or seemingly unfair, if SCOTUS upholds the COSC ruling, it would be against the law for Jena Griswold to count votes for 45.

Thankfully, there is no one except deeply disturbed TDS sufferers that believe that will happen. Regardless, a Colorado write-in campaign for President Trump is dead on arrival if SCOTUS rules against him.

‘It’s not just about President Trump’

Since the original trial — day one of the original trial when the J6 Committee Report was accepted as evidence — I’ve been saying that this matter of the 14A will impact a lot more America First candidates than just 45.

All the legal minds told me I was crazy and that the Colorado case didn’t mean anything.

Okay, sure.

Now, a couple months later, it’s becoming clear that I was right.

So-Called ‘Fellow Insurrectionists…’

Last month, ZeroHedge put it out there:

“It's not only about Donald Trump - Woke bureaucrats could use this trend in the future to deny ballot access to any conservative candidate on the grounds that they ‘might’ represent a ‘threat to Democracy.’”

And then Mi Familia Vota put out a video demanding that the courts prevent “Trump and his fellow insurrectionists” from accessing the ballot.

Like I said.

I’ve been hammering this point since the original trial, and I continue to hammer it now, because it is the most important part of this 14A effort across the nation; that is, what building blocks, precedents and small ‘wins’ are the communists arranging with their ‘findings of fact and conclusions of law’ in these 14A cases, and how will that impact those America First Americans who aren’t paying attention?

Legal scholars were quick to declare that the Colorado 14A case didn’t matter because there was no way the courts would allow a state to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and endorse the unequal treatment of voters in a Presidential election. It didn’t matter, they claimed, because the case would ultimately end up in President Trump’s favor.

That’s obviously true, and President Trump is on the primary ballot in Colorado.

So what was the point?

The point was the finding of fact that January 6 was an insurrection in the trial court, and it being upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. This finding — no matter how improper, unfair, or astounding to conservative lawyers — has emboldened progressives around the nation, such as those in Oregon and Maine.

SCOTUS must rule on the underlying findings when it takes up this appeal. Just ruling on the 14A is unacceptable.

Why?

Because it's never been about ballot access. Communists are using progressive courts to punish their political opponents and neutralize opposition and dissent.

If the high court fails to correct the state courts’ error, then the insurrection finding could (and, in Colorado, will) bar military veteran J6ers from running for office. It will also green light the uniparty’s next phase of lawfare-as-election-interference, and affirm that fake insurrections are effective change tactics.

Once that happens, what else will they call an insurrection?

Or maybe they’ll argue that the insurrection has been ongoing and the protected political activities of America First patriots since January 6, 2021 are actually acts of insurrection. You’ve noticed the regime’s increase in Civil War rhetoric, right?

My theory will be tested, by the way.

USAF Veteran and former State Representative Ron Hanks swore the oath twice, in two different official capacities. It is broadly known that he attended January 6, like thousands of other Coloradans. He was named the 6th Most Dangerous Election Denier in Colorado by Colorado Newsline in September 2021. (Newsline won an award for that article, by the way. Also, for the sake of transparency, I’m number five on the list.)

Hanks recently announced that he is running for Lauren Boebert’s abandoned seat in Congressional District 3. Ron Hanks is an honorable man and an excellent choice for Colorado’s third congressional district.

If SCOTUS only rules on the 14th’s applicability to the President, then Ron Hank’s CD3 candidacy would be ripe for a 14th Amendment claim against Ron Hanks’ candidacy.

As always, I’m happy to be wrong about the level of communism we’re in, and the idealist in me desperately wants to believe in justice.

But Hanks is just one example of how this decision will impact candidates well beyond just President Trump. The reason the regime is investing such extensive resources in this effort is that it’s all about the (improper) insurrection finding.

Court is in Session

Colorado will remain a battlefield in the election lawfare domain beyond this case as well. Tina Peters’ trial is set to begin the day before oral arguments at SCOTUS. Stay tuned to Badlands Media for all of it.

My trial is scheduled for the same week, pending a continuance. While I won’t speak about the details of my case while it’s underway, it’s similar to the True the Vote trial that was just decided in favor of the “election deniers” by an Obama-appointed judge in Georgia.

Novel lawfare — both criminal and civil — is the new normal, and America First needs to prepare to peacefully fight the progressive erosion of American greatness on every front: The public square, the state houses, the federal institutions — and the courts.

Burning Bright

says the trials are Trump’s campaign.

It’s not a theory — it’s the indisputable reality of 2024. As a result, the trials need to become all of our collective campaign.

America First.

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

Ashe in America hosts Culture of Change on Badlands Media, Sundays at 6PM ET. If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of her work for free at Ashe in America.

Badlands Media