MAGA Republican to testify for Trump in trial that may impact his eligibility.
Rep. Troy Nehls to Testify in Defense of Trump in Colorado Lawsuit
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) announced on Tuesday that he will be testifying in defense of former President Donald Trump in a Colorado lawsuit that threatens to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot.
Mr. Nehls said in a post on X that he will be serving as a fact witness for President Trump’s defense in a lawsuit in Colorado that is pursuing a novel legal theory under the 14th Amendment that seeks to disqualify the former president from the ballot based on the claim that he participated in an “insurrection.”
Calling the Colorado trial a “sham,” Mr. Nehls said that he was at the doors on Jan. 6, “face to face with protesters, and I know firsthand there was NO INSURRECTION.”
Related Stories
‘Absolutely Unprecedented’: Trump Gag Orders Test Judges’ Powers
10/31/2023
Witness Claims Trump Incited Violence on Jan. 6, in Bid to Keep Him Off Colorado Ballot
10/31/2023
“This sham trial is clear election interference, and it has no basis in fact. I look forward to providing my eyewitness account of that,” added Mr. Nehls, who served for nearly 30 years in law enforcement before entering politics.
Besides serving as an officer and elected sheriff, Mr. Nehls also served for 21 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, experience that would further inform his take on whether what happened on Jan. 6 was an insurrection, as many of his opponents have claimed.
Mr. Nehls was also one of the 147 Republicans who on Jan. 6, 2021, voted against certifying the electoral votes for then president-elect Joe Biden.
President Trump was acquitted on a second impeachment charge that he incited the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and no criminal charges of “insurrection” have ever been brought against him.
Mr. Nehls previously said that he believed that the National Guard was delayed in arriving at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because then-Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving had been waiting for guidance from then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“It’s almost like there were individuals within the current administration that wanted this to happen,” Mr. Nehls told Just The News in an interview last December. “All the intelligence was there, and what did they have? What did they have? They had bicycle racks. … A bicycle rack couldn’t keep your cat in your yard.”
14th Amendment Lawsuit
The trial underway in Colorado stems from one of the many lawsuits brought against President Trump, arguing that he should be barred from holding office under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It was brought by the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington representing six voters in Colorado, who are arguing that the former president took part in an “insurrection,” thus disqualifying him from holding elected office, according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, and it conferred citizenship and equal rights to all people born or naturalized in the United States, with the intention of protecting the rights of all former slaves.
The amendment includes a section that barred those who had engaged in “insurrections or rebellions” against the nation from holding office, unless they had two-thirds approval from Congress.
Some states have already dismissed 14th Amendment cases arguing that President Trump should be kept off the ballot, and additional cases may be brought forth at a later time. Besides Colorado, a similar trial begins this week in Minnesota on Nov. 2.
The plaintiffs in the case sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, arguing that she was illegally keeping President Trump on the state’s primary ballot.
Ms. Griswold responded with a statement, saying that Colorado’s law is unclear in terms of eligibility and welcoming adjudication.
“I look forward to the Colorado Court’s substantive resolution of the issues and am hopeful that this case will provide guidance to election officials on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office,” she said.
The Colorado statute requires a candidate to be “eligible” but doesn’t list the requirements for eligibility.
On Oct. 30, the Colorado court heard testimony from two police officers who tried to prevent the Capitol breach, along with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who described the day’s events and eventual evacuation.
Mr. Swalwell said his understanding was that President Trump’s legal avenues for challenging the election had already been exhausted in December 2020.
He said he took a morning run in the capital and saw people carrying dozens of signs saying “Stop the steal” and some people wearing tactical gear. “It gave me an unsettling feeling about the direction the day was going.”
Then he said that he and several of his Democratic colleagues watched President Trump’s speech from a cloakroom off the floor.
He claimed that the former president had “fired up” his supporters, and it all “came together on the 6th” from what he saw on the streets and during the speech.
President Trump said in his Jan. 6 speech that protesters should “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” though some of his critics have seized on a portion of his remarks where he said ”we fight like hell” and “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” as a call for violence.
The former president has on numerous occasions denied calling for violent protests while insisting he meant his remarks about fighting like hell metaphorically.
Catherine Yang contributed to this report.
What does Rep. Nehls’s decision to testify as a fact witness in defense of President Trump reveal about the importance of firsthand accounts in legal proceedings?
Lity for future elections,” she said.
Political Implications
The outcome of the Colorado lawsuit could have significant political implications for both President Trump and the Republican Party. If the lawsuit is successful and President Trump is disqualified from the 2024 primary ballot, it could potentially impact his ability to run for president again in the future.
Additionally, the lawsuit highlights the ongoing divisions within the Republican Party regarding the events of January 6th. While some Republicans, like Mr. Nehls, argue that there was no insurrection and support President Trump’s defense, others believe that he played a role in inciting the violence and should be held accountable.
The outcome of this trial, as well as other similar cases, will likely shape the narrative surrounding the events of January 6th and influence the trajectory of the Republican Party in the coming years.
The Importance of Fact Witnesses
Rep. Nehls’s decision to testify as a fact witness in defense of President Trump highlights the importance of firsthand accounts in legal proceedings. Fact witnesses provide crucial testimony based on their personal experiences and observations, which can help establish the truth of a matter.
In this case, Rep. Nehls’s eyewitness account of the events on January 6th could potentially challenge the claims that President Trump incited an insurrection. His testimony may provide a different perspective and contribute to the overall understanding of what occurred that day.
Fact witnesses play a crucial role in legal proceedings by bringing forth evidence and testifying under oath. Their accounts can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case and help ensure that justice is served.
The Future of Election Lawsuits
The Colorado lawsuit is just one example of the numerous election-related lawsuits that have emerged in recent years. These lawsuits raise important questions about the interpretation of election laws, the eligibility of candidates, and the consequences of their actions.
As election laws continue to evolve, it is likely that we will see more lawsuits challenging candidates’ eligibility based on various legal theories. The outcome of these cases will shape the future of elections and potentially set legal precedents that impact future campaigns.
It is essential for the legal system to carefully consider these cases and ensure that the interpretation and application of election laws are fair and in accordance with the Constitution. The resolution of these lawsuits will ultimately determine the rules and regulations that govern our democratic processes.
Conclusion
Rep. Troy Nehls’s decision to testify as a fact witness in defense of former President Trump in the Colorado lawsuit adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate surrounding the events of January 6th.
The outcome of this lawsuit, along with other similar cases, will have significant implications for the future of President Trump, the Republican Party, and the interpretation of election laws
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
