Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson quickly abandoned her \u2064\u201cinsurrection\u201d questioning on Thursday when former \u2064President Donald Trump\u2019s \u2064lawyer Jonathan Mitchell pointed out that the term,\u200c although used widely \u200cby corporate media, Democrats, \u200band Colorado\u2019s \u200blawyers, does not accurately describe\u200b the events of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. <\/p>\n

The exchange occurred during oral\u2062 arguments<\/a> for the presidential frontrunner\u2019s challenge to the Colorado\u200d Supreme Court\u2019s\u00a0December 2023 ruling<\/a> affirming Democrats\u2019 decision to remove \u2064Trump from the Centennial State\u2019s \u200b 2024 primary ballot<\/a>. <\/p>\n

After\u2063 going back and forth with Mitchell several times about\u2062 what constitutes eligibility for constitutional disqualification from holding office, Jackson pivoted \u200cto the \u200cdefinition of\u2064 insurrection. \u200d <\/p>\n

In a question about \u201cthe violent attempts of \u2063the\u2062 petitioner\u2019s\u200c supporters in this case to \u2018halt the count\u2019 on \u200cJanuary 6 qualified as\u2064 an \u200binsurrection\u200c as defined by\u200d Section 3,\u201d Jackson\u2064 asked\u200b Mitchell to clarify his position on whether or not Trump\u2063 engaged in \u201cinsurrection\u201d during\u200d the Capitol riot \u2063in 2021.<\/p>\n

Jackson clearly sourced her \u2062framing from \u2063the\u2064 corporate media \u2062and Democrats who, \u2062mere minutes into the 2021 Capitol riot, deemed the bedlam a criminal\u2062 product of Trump.\u200b <\/p>\n

They immediately lumped the patriotic, law-abiding citizens<\/a> with concerns about the 2020 election\u2019s legitimacy protesting in D.C. with the\u200b people \u2063who\u200c vandalized Capitol\u2063 property. Big Tech\u2063 weaponized \u200dthis mischaracterization to justify its censorship of Trump\u2019s \u200b social media calls<\/a> for peace<\/a>. President Joe \u200bBiden\u2019s Department of Justice also adopted the sweeping insurrection \u2063accusations as\u2062 its primary motivation<\/a> to prosecute any \u2063and every\u2062 one of its political\u2063 enemies in or near<\/a> \u200cthe federal \u200bbuilding\u200c that day. <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cI read your opening\u200c brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection but then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not,\u201d Jackson said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe \u2063never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this\u2064 was an \u2062insurrection,\u201d Mitchell\u200d retorted. \u200c\u201cWhat we said \u200bin our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in \u200cany act that can\u200c plausibly be characterized as \u200cinsurrection.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
Justice Jackson: “So, \u2062your point\u2062 is \u2063that a chaotic effort to overthrow the \u200bgovernment is not \u2062an insurrection?”<\/p>\n
Jonathan\u2064 Mitchell: “We didn’t \u200bconceded \u2064that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either\u2026this \u200cwas a a riot. It was not an insurrection.” pic.twitter.com\/dq7gEX9au5<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n