Witness alleges Trump incited violence on Jan. 6 to prevent his inclusion on Colorado ballot.
Sociology Professor Testifies on Trump’s Alleged “Insurrection”
In a high-profile case, sociology professor Peter Simi took the stand as an expert witness, arguing that former President Donald Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection” and should disqualify him from running for office. Known for his expertise in political violence and extremism, Simi has spent decades studying and interviewing gang members and extremists.
According to Simi, the key groups responsible for the breach of the U.S. Capitol were the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, and Oathkeepers. He described them as far-right extremist groups with a penchant for conspiracy theories and an “us versus them” mentality, viewing their opponents as an existential threat.
Simi emphasized that these extremists have an anti-democratic impulse and support authoritarian methods. He argued that their use of coded language and deceptive speech, such as referring to “1776,” was a call for violence. He also claimed that President Trump’s rally invitation was interpreted by extremists as a call to violence.
When questioned about President Trump’s intentions, Simi admitted that he had no evidence of the former president’s training in this kind of communication. However, he remained confident in his interpretation based on his extensive research.
Defense attorneys challenged Simi’s claims, pointing out that the evidence presented did not result in violence. The trial, taking place in Colorado, is one of several lawsuits arguing that President Trump is ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment.
Colorado Case
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, grants citizenship and equal rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. It includes a section that prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrections or rebellions from holding office without two-thirds approval from Congress.
The lawsuit, brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of Colorado voters, alleges that the events of January 6, 2021, constituted a violent insurrection in which President Trump participated.
The trial heard testimony from police officers and Rep. Eric Swalwell, with Judge Wallace aiming to issue a ruling by Thanksgiving. Regardless of the outcome, the case is expected to be appealed.
Another similar case is set to begin in Minnesota on Thursday.
Donald Trump
Simi testified that while far-right extremists typically view national leaders with skepticism, they saw President Trump as one of their own. He cited examples such as Trump’s questioning of President Obama’s citizenship and his derogatory remarks about illegal immigrants aligning with extremist beliefs.
Simi labeled the claim of widespread election fraud in the 2020 elections as a conspiracy theory and highlighted the presence of armed militia anti-government types at “Stop the Steal” rallies.
Defense attorneys played clips of politicians, including Democrats, using the phrase “fight like hell.” Simi acknowledged that without observational evidence of a relationship between politicians and extremists, he could not determine if these speeches were coded for extremists.
During cross-examination, Simi admitted that he had not interviewed anyone who attended the January 6 rally and relied on social media posts and expert opinions. He also confirmed that his opinion was based on observation and not direct evidence of President Trump’s intentions.
How do the defense’s challenges to Simi’s claims impact the strength of the prosecution’s argument
On July 9, 1868, is one of the Reconstruction Amendments that aimed to secure the rights of newly freed slaves and protect them from discrimination. It states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In the Colorado case, the defense argues that President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, violated the 14th Amendment by inciting an insurrection and undermining the democratic process. They claim that his rhetoric and encouragement of his supporters to “fight like hell” and ”take back our country” constituted a direct threat to the principles of democracy and equal protection under the law.
Simi’s expert testimony was crucial in establishing the link between President Trump’s actions and the extremist groups responsible for the breach of the U.S. Capitol. By identifying the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, and Oathkeepers as the main actors, he provided insight into their ideology and motivations. Simi’s research on political violence and extremism allowed him to analyze the coded language used by these groups and interpret it as a call for violence.
However, the defense raised valid points challenging Simi’s claims. They argued that the evidence presented did not directly prove that President Trump’s actions resulted in violence. The defense questioned Simi’s reliance on his interpretation of coded language and suggested that alternative explanations for the use of phrases like “1776” could be possible.
While Simi acknowledged that he had no evidence of President Trump’s training in this kind of communication, he stood by his interpretation based on his extensive research on extremist groups and their tactics. He emphasized that the context and timing of President Trump’s rally and the subsequent breach of the Capitol support the argument that his words had a direct impact on the actions of the extremists.
The outcome of this case in
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...