Judge in Trump ‘Insurrectionist’ Ballot Appearance Trial Donated to Anti-Insurrection Group After J6
Judge in Trump ‘Insurrectionist’ Ballot Appearance Trial Donated to Group Formed to ‘Prevent Violent Insurrections’ After J6
The judge presiding over the case to determine whether former President Donald Trump should be allowed on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot next year has denied a request from Trump’s legal team to step down from the case.
The request came after it was discovered that Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace had made a donation to a group called the Colorado Turnout Project, which was formed in response to the events of January 6, 2021, when political extremists stormed the United States Capitol.
“Its website proudly proclaims that the group was formed ‘shortly after Colorado Republicans refused to condemn the political extremists who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,'” attorney Scott Gessler wrote in the motion seeking Wallace’s recusal.
Gessler argued that Wallace’s donation to the Colorado Turnout Project indicated support for the view that the events of January 6 constituted an “insurrection.”
However, Wallace, who had donated $100 to the group before becoming a judge, disagreed with Gessler’s interpretation.
“I can assure all of the litigants that prior to the start of this litigation and to this day, I have formed no opinion whether the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection,” Wallace stated in response to the motion.
She also clarified that she had no opinion on whether Trump had engaged in an insurrection or any other issues relevant to the case.
While Wallace acknowledged making the donation, she emphasized that it was not a common practice for her to contribute to political action committees (PACs).
The central question in the case before Wallace is whether Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, can be considered an “insurrection.” The outcome of the case will determine whether Trump should be barred from the Colorado Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment.
Colorado Politics reported that judges are prohibited from making political contributions, but this rule only applies to judges and judicial candidates. The plaintiffs argued that Wallace was neither a judge nor a candidate when she made the donation, but it was pointed out that her appointment to the bench had been announced prior to the donation.
The case, Anderson et al. v. Griswold, is expected to conclude soon, with a decision from the judge pending. The Colorado Republican presidential primary is scheduled for March 5, 2024.
A Note from Our Founder:
Every morning, we at The Western Journal wake up with a mission to provide you with the important information you need about what’s happening in America.
We can’t do that without your help.
America has been bombarded with false narratives that aim to make you feel powerless. The Western Journal empowers you by debunking these false narratives.
However, I must be honest with you today and let you know that the future of The Western Journal is in jeopardy without your help.
Silicon Valley and Big Tech tyrants have done everything they can to shut down The Western Journal. It is our faithful donors and subscribers who have kept us going.
If you’ve never donated before, please consider helping us today. We need your support in these dire times for our country.
Please stand with us by donating today.
Floyd G. Brown
Founder of The Western Journal
The post Judge in Trump ’Insurrectionist’ Ballot Appearance Trial Donated to Group Formed to ‘Prevent Violent Insurrections’ After J6 appeared first on The Western Journal.
How does the fact that Judge Wallace presiding over the case raise concerns about her impartiality?
The fact that she is presiding over the case makes her impartiality questionable.
The plaintiffs further argued that the donation to the Colorado Turnout Project indicates Wallace’s bias and support for the view that the events of January 6 were an insurrection. They raised concerns that this bias could potentially affect her decision in the case.
In response, Wallace stated that she had not formed any opinion on whether the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection. She emphasized that she had no opinion on whether Trump engaged in an insurrection or any other issues relevant to the case. Wallace asserted that she could assure all the litigants that she is impartial and will approach the case with an open mind.
While Wallace acknowledged making the donation, she clarified that it is not a common practice for her to contribute to political action committees (PACs). She stated that her contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project should not be interpreted as support for their specific views or actions.
The central question in the case is whether Trump’s actions on January 6 can be considered an insurrection. This determination will ultimately decide whether Trump should be allowed on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment.
It is worth noting that judges are generally prohibited from making political contributions. However, this rule applies specifically to judges and judicial candidates. The plaintiffs argued that since Wallace made the donation before becoming a judge, the prohibition does not apply to her. Nonetheless, the fact that she is presiding over the case raises concerns about her impartiality.
The denial of the request for Wallace’s recusal means that she will continue to oversee the case. It will be essential for Wallace to ensure that she maintains an unbiased approach throughout the proceedings to uphold the integrity of the legal process.
Cases involving political figures often attract public attention, and it is crucial for judges to not only uphold the law but also be perceived as impartial and fair. Transparency and fairness in the legal system are fundamental to maintaining public trust and confidence.
As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how Wallace’s previous donation and her assurance of impartiality will impact the final decision regarding Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado Republican primary ballot. The outcome of this case will not only have implications for Trump’s political future but could also set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.
" 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...