Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

“It’s self-evident,” President Joe Biden told reporters on Wednesday. “You saw it all. He certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.”

Biden was referring to the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from that state’s presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was originally aimed at barring former Confederates from returning to public office after the Civil War. As relevant here, Section 3 says “no person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Biden, whose reelection bid would get a big boost from Trump’s disqualification, takes it for granted that the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol qualified as an “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, and he says there is “no question” that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection. But the Colorado Supreme Court’s reasoning on both of those crucial points is iffy, and I say that as someone who thought Trump richly deserved his second impeachment, which was provoked by his reckless behavior before and during the riot.

On its face, that impeachment supports the court’s decision, which was joined by four of seven justices. The article of impeachment, after all, charged Trump with “incitement of insurrection” and explicitly cited Section 3. But that debatable characterization was not necessary to show that Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Trump’s misconduct included his refusal to accept Biden’s victory, his persistent peddling of his stolen-election fantasy, his pressure on state and federal officials to embrace that fantasy, the incendiary speech he delivered to his supporters before the riot, and his failure to intervene after a couple thousand of those supporters invaded the Capitol, interrupting the congressional ratification of the election results. All of that was more than enough to conclude that Trump had egregiously violated his oath to “faithfully execute” his office and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It was more than enough to justify his conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors in the Senate, which would have prevented him from running for president again.

Achieving the same result under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, by contrast, does require concluding that Trump “engaged in insurrection.” But in reaching that conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court never actually defines insurrection.

“At oral argument,” the opinion notes, “President Trump’s counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct.” But the court does not offer “a specific definition” either: “It suffices for us to conclude that any definition of ‘insurrection’ for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.”

That description suggests a level of intent and coordination that seems at odds with the chaotic reality of the Capitol riot. Some rioters were members of groups, such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, that thought the use of force was justified to keep Trump in office. But even in those cases, federal prosecutors had a hard time proving a specific conspiracy to “hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power” by interrupting the electoral vote tally on January 6. And the vast majority of rioters seem to have acted spontaneously, with no clear goal in mind other than expressing their outrage at an election outcome they believed was the product of massive fraud.

They believed that, of course, because that is what Trump told them. But to the extent that Trump bears moral and political responsibility for riling them up with his phony grievance (which he does), his culpability hinges on the assumption that the rioters acted impulsively and emotionally in the heat of the moment. That understanding is hard to reconcile with the Colorado Supreme Court’s premise that Trump’s hotheaded supporters acted in concert with the intent of forcibly preventing “a peaceful transfer of power.”

Nor is it clear that Trump “engaged in” the “insurrection” that the court perceives. After reviewing dictionary definitions and the views of Henry Stanbery, the U.S. attorney general when the 14th Amendment was debated, the majority concludes that “‘engaged in’ requires ‘an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.'”

Trump’s pre-riot speech was reckless because it was foreseeable that at least some people in his audience would be moved to go beyond peaceful protest. Some 2,000 of the 50,000 or so supporters he addressed that day (around 4 percent) participated in the assault on the Capitol. But that does not necessarily mean Trump intended that result. In concluding that he did, the court interprets Trump’s demand that his supporters “fight like hell” to “save our democracy” literally rather than figuratively. It also notes that he repeatedly urged them to march toward the Capitol. As the court sees it, that means Trump “literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol.”

The justices eventually concede that Trump, who never explicitly called for violence, said his supporters would be “marching to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But they discount that phrasing as cover for Trump’s actual intent. Given Trump’s emphasis on the necessity of “fight[ing] like hell” to avert the disaster that would result if Biden were allowed to take office, they say, the implicit message was that the use of force was justified. In support of that conclusion, the court cites Chapman University sociologist Peter Simi, who testified that “Trump’s speech took place in the context of a pattern of Trump’s knowing ‘encouragement and promotion of violence,'” which he accomplished by “develop[ing] and deploy[ing] a shared coded language with his violent supporters.”

That seems like a pretty speculative basis for concluding that Trump intentionally encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol. Given what we know about Trump, it is perfectly plausible that, unlike any reasonably prudent person, he was heedless of the danger that his words posed in this context. It is harder to believe that he cleverly developed a “coded language” that he knew some of his supporters would understand as a call to violence.

Nor is it clear how the violence that Trump allegedly intended was supposed to benefit him. There was no realistic prospect that it would actually stop Biden from taking office, and in the end it did no more than delay completion of the electoral vote count. Meanwhile, it alienated former Trump allies (albeit only briefly in some cases), led to his second impeachment, and left an ineradicable stain on his presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s belief that Trump intentionally caused a riot also figures in its rejection of his argument that his January 6 speech was protected by the First Amendment. The relevant standard here comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which involved a Klansman who was convicted of promoting terrorism and criminal syndicalism. Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to do so.

The Colorado Supreme Court quotes the 6th Circuit’s elucidation of that test in the 2015 case Bible Believers v. Wayne County: “The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to riot unless (1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action, (2) the speaker intends that his speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of his speech.”

It is hard to deny that Trump’s speech satisfies the third prong, which is why it provoked so much well-deserved criticism and rightly figured in his impeachment. But what about the other two prongs?

Applying the first prong, the court cites “the general atmosphere of political violence that President Trump created before January 6” as well as the “coded language” of his speech that day. As evidence of the “specific intent” required by the second prong, it notes that “federal agencies that President Trump oversaw identified threats of violence ahead of January 6.” It also cites what it takes to be the implicit message of Trump’s speech and his reluctance to intervene after the riot started.

“President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” the court says. “Despite his knowledge of the anger that he had instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been made leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, President Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it (with his words or by calling in the military), thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended.”

All of this evidence is consistent with recklessness and dereliction of duty. But it falls short of proving that Trump deliberately “encouraged the use of violence” or that he had a “specific intent” to cause a riot, let alone that he thereby “engaged in insurrection.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Entertainment

BST Hyde Park’s final day cancelled as Jeff Lynne’s ELO pulls out of headline slot

Published

3 hours ago

on

July 13, 2025

By

BST Hyde Park's final day cancelled as Jeff Lynne's ELO pulls out of headline slot

BST Hyde Park festival has cancelled its final night after Jeff Lynne’s Electric Light Orchestra pulled out of the headline slot.

Lynne, 77, was due to play alongside his band on Sunday but has been forced to withdraw from the event following a “systemic infection”.

The London show was supposed to be a “final goodbye” from ELO following their farewell US tour.

Organisers said on Saturday that Lynne was “heartbroken” at being unable to perform.

A statement read: “Jeff has been battling a systemic infection and is currently in the care of a team of doctors who have advised him that performing is simply not possible at this time nor will he be able to reschedule.

“The legacy of the band and his longtime fans are foremost in Jeff’s mind today – and while he is so sorry that he cannot perform, he knows that he must focus on his health and rehabilitation at this time.”

They later confirmed the whole of Sunday’s event would be cancelled.

“Ticket holders will be refunded and contacted directly by their ticket agent with further details,” another statement said.

Stevie Wonder played the festival on Saturday – now its final event of 2025.

Read more from Sky News:
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland record hottest days of year
Tennis star in tears after Wimbledon final drubbing

US rock band The Doobie Brothers and blues rock singer Steve Winwood were among those who had been due to perform to before ELO’s headline performance.

The cancellation comes after the band, best known for their hit Mr Blue Sky, pulled out of a performance due to take place at Manchester’s Co-Op Live Arena on Thursday.

ELO was formed in Birmingham in 1970 by Lynne, multi-instrumentalist Roy Wood and drummer Bev Bevan.

They first split in 1986, before frontman Lynne resurrected the band in 2014.

Continue Reading

Sports

2025 MLB Home Run Derby: The field is set! Who is the slugger to beat?

Published

3 hours ago

on

July 13, 2025

By

2025 MLB Home Run Derby: The field is set! Who is the slugger to beat?

Jul 11, 2025, 08:19 PM ET

The 2025 MLB All-Star Home Run Derby is fast approaching — and the field is set.

Braves hometown hero Ronald Acuna Jr. became the first player to commit to the event, which will be held at Truist Park in Atlanta on July 14 (8 p.m. ET on ESPN). He was followed by MLB home run leader Cal Raleigh of the Seattle Mariners, James Wood of the Washington Nationals, Byron Buxton of the Minnesota Twins, Oneil Cruz of the Pittsburgh Pirates, Junior Caminero of the Tampa Bay Rays, Brent Rooker of the Athletics and Jazz Chisholm Jr. of the New York Yankees.

On Friday, however, Acuna was replaced by teammate Matt Olson.

With all the entrants announced, let’s break down their chances at taking home this year’s Derby prize.

Full All-Star Game coverage: How to watch, schedule, rosters, more

2025 home runs: 17 | Longest: 434 feet

Why he could win: Olson is a late replacement for Acuna as the home team’s representative at this year’s Derby. Apart from being the Braves’ first baseman, however, Olson also was born in Atlanta and grew up a Braves fan, giving him some extra motivation. The left-handed slugger led the majors in home runs in 2023 — his 54 round-trippers that season also set a franchise record — and he remains among the best in the game when it comes to exit velo and hard-hit rate.

Why he might not: The home-field advantage can also be a detriment if a player gets too hyped up in the first round. See Julio Rodriguez in Seattle in 2023, when he had a monster first round, with 41 home runs, but then tired out in the second round.

2025 home runs: 36 | Longest: 440 feet

Why he could win: It’s the season of Cal! The Mariners’ catcher is having one of the greatest slugging first halves in MLB history, as he’s been crushing mistakes all season . His easy raw power might be tailor-made for the Derby — he ranks in the 87th percentile in average exit velocity and delivers the ball, on average, at the optimal home run launch angle of 23 degrees. His calm demeanor might also be perfect for the contest as he won’t get too amped up.

Why he might not: He’s a catcher — and one who has carried a heavy workload, playing in all but one game this season. This contest is as much about stamina as anything, and whether Raleigh can carry his power through three rounds would be a concern. No catcher has ever won the Derby, with only Ivan Rodriguez back in 2005 even reaching the finals.

2025 home runs: 24 | Longest: 451 feet

Why he could win: He’s big, he’s strong, he’s young, he’s awesome, he might or might not be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. This is the perfect opportunity for Wood to show his talent on the national stage, and he wouldn’t be the first young player to star in the Derby. He ranks in the 97th percentile in average exit velocity and 99th percentile in hard-hit rate, so he can still muscle the ball out in BP even if he slightly mishits it. His long arms might be viewed as a detriment, but remember the similarly tall Aaron Judge won in 2017.

Why he might not: His natural swing isn’t a pure uppercut — he has a pretty low average launch angle of just 6.2 degrees — so we’ll see how that plays in a rapid-fire session. In real games, his power is primarily to the opposite field, but in a Home Run Derby you can get more cheapies pulling the ball down the line.

2025 home runs: 20 | Longest: 479 feet

Why he could win: Buxton’s raw power remains as impressive as nearly any hitter in the game. He crushed a 479-foot home run earlier this season and has four others of at least 425 feet. Indeed, his “no doubter” percentage — home runs that would be out of all 30 parks based on distance — is 75%, the highest in the majors among players with more than a dozen home runs. His bat speed ranks in the 89th percentile. In other words, two tools that could translate to a BP lightning show.

Why he might not: Buxton is 31 and the Home Run Derby feels a little more like a younger man’s competition. Teoscar Hernandez did win last year at age 31, but before that, the last winner older than 29 was David Ortiz in 2010, and that was under much different rules than are used now.

2025 home runs: 16 | Longest: 463 feet

Why he could win: If you drew up a short list of players everyone wants to see in the Home Run Derby, Cruz would be near the top. He has the hardest-hit ball of the 2025 season, and the hardest ever tracked by Statcast, a 432-foot missile of a home run with an exit velocity of 122.9 mph. He also crushed a 463-foot home run in Anaheim that soared way beyond the trees in center field. With his elite bat speed — 100th percentile — Cruz has the ability to awe the crowd with a potentially all-time performance.

Why he might not: Like all first-time contestants, can he stay within himself and not get too caught up in the moment? He has a long swing, which will result in some huge blasts, but might not be the most efficient for a contest like this one, where the more swings a hitter can get in before the clock expires, the better.

2025 home runs: 23 | Longest: 425 feet

Why he could win: Although Caminero was one of the most hyped prospects entering 2024, everyone kind of forgot about him heading into this season since he didn’t immediately rip apart the majors as a rookie. In his first full season, however, he has showed off his big-time raw power — giving him a chance to become just the third player to reach 40 home runs in his age-21 season. He has perhaps the quickest bat in the majors, ranking in the 100th percentile in bat speed, and his top exit velocity ranks in the top 15. That could translate to a barrage of home runs.

Why he might not: In game action, Caminero does hit the ball on the ground quite often — in fact, he’s on pace to break Jim Rice’s record for double plays grounded into in a season. If he gets out of rhythm, that could lead to a lot of low line drives during the Derby instead of fly balls that clear the fences.

2025 home runs: 19 | Longest: 440 feet

Why he could win: The Athletics slugger has been one of the top power hitters in the majors for three seasons now and is on his way to a third straight 30-homer season. Rooker has plus bat speed and raw power, but his biggest strength is an optimal average launch angle (19 degrees in 2024, 15 degrees this season) that translates to home runs in game action. That natural swing could be picture perfect for the Home Run Derby. He also wasn’t shy about saying he wanted to participate — and maybe that bodes well for his chances.

Why he might not: Rooker might not have quite the same raw power as some of the other competitors, as he has just one home run longer than 425 feet in 2025. But that’s a little nitpicky, as 11 of his home runs have still gone 400-plus feet. He competed in the college home run derby in Omaha while at Mississippi State in 2016 and finished fourth.

2025 home runs: 17 | Longest: 442 feet

Why he could win: Chisholm might not be the most obvious name to participate, given his career high of 24 home runs, but he has belted 17 already in 2025 in his first 61 games after missing some time with an injury. He ranks among the MLB leaders in a couple of home run-related categories, ranking in the 96th percentile in expected slugging percentage and 98th percentile in barrel rate. His raw power might not match that of the other participants, but he’s a dead-pull hitter who has increased his launch angle this season, which might translate well to the Derby, even if he won’t be the guy hitting the longest home runs.

Why he might not: Most of the guys who have won this have been big, powerful sluggers. Chisholm is listed at 5-foot-11, 184 pounds, and you have to go back to Miguel Tejada in 2004 to find the last player under 6 foot to win.

Continue Reading

Sports

On Buxton bobblehead day, All-Star hits for cycle

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 12, 2025

By

On Buxton bobblehead day, All-Star hits for cycle

  • Associated Press

Jul 12, 2025, 05:06 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota Twins All-Star center fielder Byron Buxton admitted to feeling a little added pressure before Saturday’s game against the Pittsburgh Pirates. It was his bobblehead day, meaning the first 10,000 fans to walk through the gates at Target Field would receive a replica of Buxton doing his “Buck Truck” home run celebration.

“I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t nervous before the game started, just knowing it was bobblehead day,” Buxton said. “Obviously you want to come out and do something good.”

Buxton did more than something good. He became the first player to hit for the cycle at Target Field since the ballpark opened in 2010, helping ignite the Twins to a 12-4 win over the Pirates.

It was the 12th cycle in Twins history and the first since Jorge Polanco had one in 2019.

Buxton had three hits through three innings — a single in the first, a triple in the six-run second and a double in the third. After singling again in the fifth, he had one more opportunity in the bottom of the seventh.

Buxton, who will participate in next week’s Home Run Derby in Atlanta, crushed a 427-foot solo homer off Pirates reliever Andrew Heaney with two outs in the seventh to make it an 11-3 game and complete the cycle. That brought the Target Field crowd to its feet, with many fans celebrating with Buxton bobbleheads.

With his team holding a comfortable lead, Twins manager Rocco Baldelli almost took Buxton out of the game before his final at-bat, he admitted afterward. Thankfully for Baldelli — and Buxton — a few coaches reminded the skipper what was at stake.

“He was 4 for 4 at the time. But with everything going on during a game, sometimes I’ll be the one that might miss on a hitting streak or something that’s going on with a particular player,” Baldelli said. “But once they reminded me of that, he was going to stay in the game. He was going to get another at-bat, regardless of the score, and give him a chance to do something great.”

The homer was Buxton’s 21st of the season, tied for fifth most in the American League. With two runs driven in Saturday, Buxton now has 55 RBIs on the season — just one shy of his single-season high. He boasts an OPS of .921 and is 17 for 17 in stolen bases.

“It’s one of the greatest first halves I’ve ever witnessed,” Baldelli said.

Buxton was replaced in center field after the seventh inning, but not before getting a standing ovation curtain call from Twins fans. He also received a Gatorade bath courtesy of teammate Ty France, who was headed to the clubhouse before realizing that nobody had doused Buxton yet after the game.

“It’s special,” Buxton said. “To be able to come out on bobblehead day like this and have a day like this is something I won’t forget.”

Continue Reading

Trending