Guess Who Hasn’t Said a Single Word on Colorado’s Trump Ballot Decision?

A pair of Republican leaders have stayed noticeably mum on the Colorado Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 election ballot.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John Thune—the number two Republican in the upper chamber—haven’t made a peep about the state judiciary’s historic decision that would effectively prevent the GOP front-runner from winning a single Colorado vote, on the basis that Trump violated the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment when he spawned an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

The pair’s silence suggests that the Republican anti-Trumpers foresee a better Republican Party without the wannabe despot, who is currently leading the GOP primaries by more than 50 points above his runner-up, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, according to aggregated polling data by FiveThirtyEight.

When the Senate voted to acquit Trump of his impeachment charges, McConnell only agreed to do so on a technicality, arguing that Trump had already left office by the time they were arguing its merits in the Senate in February 2021.

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said at the time.

Thune, meanwhile, has argued that when Trump wins, Republicans lose.

But others have taken note of the pair’s recent silence—including Trump’s family.

“Mitch McConnell, John Thune and John Cornyn remain silent. Of the 4 most senior members of Senate Republican leadership, Barrasso is the only one with the courage to weigh in against what the radical left is trying to do to my father,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X, referring to the Senate GOP conference chairman.

The Colorado court’s decision is the first in U.S. history to keep a candidate, let alone a presidential one, off the ballot. Its ruling has now put immense pressure on the federal Supreme Court, which, after taking on several high-profile abortion cases, has already primed itself to play a pivotal role in the 2024 election cycle.

Despite that, the Colorado ruling could also prove majorly influential to courts and election officials considering similar measures in other states, potentially narrowing the ability for Trump to win a majority in the first place.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham has started a wild new conspiracy about why Donald Trump is facing so many legal trials.

In a Wednesday night segment, Ingraham addressed Trump’s disqualification from the Colorado state presidential ballot, his multiple trials for fraud and trying to overturn the 2020 election, and his recent comments paraphrasing Adolf Hitler.

“Given what we are seeing in the courts, at the DOJ, and even in state AG offices, and given Democrats’ ‘Trump is Hitler’ rhetoric—is it not logical, at least to consider, maybe even to assume, that some on the left are hoping to spark some type of civil unrest here?” Ingraham said.

“Which would be followed, of course, by a mass crackdown on civil liberties, or the declaration of maybe a nationwide emergency? All as a way—a protectual way—to usher in, I don’t know, nationwide mail-in voting?”

Ingraham is the latest Trump backer to insist there is some sort of deep state conspiracy against him. In reality, Trump has promised to be a “dictator” on the first day of his presidency if he is reelected. How is that not a “mass crackdown on civil liberties”?

Ingraham’s comments sound a lot like her former colleague Tucker Carlson, who—despite admitting privately that he hates Trump “passionately”—never missed a chance to gin up fear on Trump’s behalf.

What’s more, Carlson, Trump, and many others in the former president’s inner circle regularly tried to spark civil unrest as a way of achieving their goals.

Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject special counsel Jack Smith’s request for the justices to decide whether the former president is immune to prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is immune to criminal proceedings because he was president at the time of his alleged crimes. Smith, who is investigating Trump for both trying to overturn the election and mishandling classified documents, filed an accelerated motion asking the Supreme Court directly to weigh in, jumping over a lower appeals court.

Trump’s legal team had until Wednesday to respond, and when they did, it was to beg the high court to stay out of it. His lawyers argued that Smith wanted the justices to “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.”

In reality, if the Supreme Court waits to rule until after a lower appeals court issues a decision, then the whole process could delay Trump’s trial. This is presumably what Trump and his lawyers want, since the trial is currently set to begin on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday. If the Supreme Court instead takes the case and rejects Trump’s argument, the trial will likely proceed on schedule.

Smith indicted Trump in August for the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection and other attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump faces one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and has insisted the case should be dismissed altogether. He argues that former presidents can’t be criminally charged for actions related to their official responsibilities. He did not explain how overturning an election was related to official presidential duties.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the trial, rejected Trump’s immunity claim. Trump appealed her decision to a Washington federal appellate court, while Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The Supreme Court justices, who will have to decide this matter one way or another, have given no indication of how they will rule. Trump appointed three members of the conservative-leaning bench, but the majority of the justices are also sticklers for the Constitution.

Kellyanne Conway explained the Democratic agenda on Wednesday—no, not the party’s policy platform, but the way individual Democrats spend each day.

Conway appeared on Fox News to criticize the historic Colorado Supreme Court decision disqualifying her former boss Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot. During her segment, Conway turned her ire to Democrats in general.

“I just think that Democrats wake up every morning … and they look at the calendar on the iPhone, and it says January 6, 2021. The date never changes,” she said as the hosts laughed.

“And then they get into an electric vehicle and go get an abortion.”

Conway was obviously trying to mock Democrats. But it doesn’t seem like such a bad thing for people to be able to drive a vehicle of their choice and go get a health care procedure without any issues.

What’s more, people probably should think regularly about January 6. The attack on the Capitol was and continues to be incredibly dangerous for democracy.

Some Democratic lawmakers couldn’t resist poking a little fun back.

Texas’s lieutenant governor has threatened to take President Biden off his state’s ballot in retribution for the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from that state’s 2024 ballot.

In a historic decision, the Colorado justices ruled 4–3 late Tuesday that Trump had engaged in the January 6 insurrection and was therefore disqualified from running for office again. A few hours later, Lone Star State official Dan Patrick fired back.

“Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight, Laura, makes me think—except we believe in democracy in Texas—maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state,” Patrick told Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

Threatening to take someone off the ballot just because you disagree with them makes it kind of hard to believe you “believe in democracy.”

Biden has infuriated immigration advocates for continuing many of Trump’s draconian policies, but Patrick apparently prefers even harsher measures. Just this week, Texas passed a law that gives local judges the authority to deport undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Stephen Miller claimed Wednesday that the United States is being overrun by immigrants and can only be saved by “massive” deportations.

The white nationalist and former Trump White House adviser was backing up chilling comments from his old boss, who over the weekend echoed Adolf Hitler by accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

“We are being conquered,” Miller said to Fox News’s Jesse Watters. “This is a complete resettlement of America in real time. It took hundreds of years, going back long even before our founding, going back all the way to the earliest days of the colonies in America to slowly build everything that we have.

“And now we have millions of people coming in from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems. They’re going to take those belief systems with them to America,” he continued. “So, a generation from now, I am telling you Jesse, people will not know the country that they are living in. These consequences are permanent. Unless there’s massive large-scale deportations by the millions, it will be irrevocable.”

Stripped of the incendiary rhetoric, this is really just a definition of how immigration works: People move to another country, bringing the culture of their homeland. In fact, Miller implicitly acknowledges that America was colonized by white people who emigrated from England—with “belief systems” that were, needless to say, different from those of the people already living in North America.

Of course, countless millions of others have since come to America “from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems,” but Miller isn’t one to let a few basic historical facts get in the way of his narrative. He’s simply opposed to the nonwhite people immigrating to America today.

Miller is reportedly on the short list for attorney general if Trump is elected in 2024. If Miller returns to power, he could help implement those “massive large-scale deportations” he called for. He was already the mastermind behind some of Trump’s worst immigration policies, including separating families at the southern border and banning Muslims from entering the country.

And Trump is likely to go along with Miller’s suggestions. The former president appears to be making the Hitler parallels a major part of his 2024 campaign persona.

Miller also claimed Wednesday that the Colorado Supreme Court banning Trump from the state presidential ballot was part of the “great replacement theory,” the far-right theory that white people are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants. This conspiracy theory is growing increasingly popular among Republicans.

“You see a two-front attack on democracy,” he said. “They are saying to American citizens, ‘You can’t vote. You don’t have a voice. You can’t be heard.’ And they’re also saying, ‘We’re bringing in new people that we think will agree with us and support us, and their families will vote for us, and they are going to be the new base of power in this country.’”

Republicans are up in arms over Donald Trump getting banned from the Colorado presidential ballot, a sign of how much power he still has in the party.

The Colorado Supreme Court issued a historic decision late Tuesday, ruling 4–3 that Trump had engaged in the January 6 insurrection and was therefore disqualified from running for office again. Republicans have, predictably, fallen in line behind him.

Multiple lawmakers accused the state’s Supreme Court of election interference and voter suppression—which is pretty ironic given that the GOP opposes laws that would expand voter rights and 147 of its members in Congress voted to overturn the 2020 election results.

House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the ruling as “nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack,” while Representative Elise Stefanik predicted the decision will “backfire and further strengthen President Trump’s winning campaign to Save America.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is not-so-secretly gunning to be Trump’s vice presidential pick, demanded the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case.

“The Democrats and 4 Colorado judges just stole the election away from the people of Colorado and robbed them of their right to vote for President Trump,” she said on X, formerly Twitter.

“This is an unprecedented First amendment violation that must be struck down by the SCOTUS.”

Senator Mike Lee called the ruling “lawless thuggery masquerading as jurisprudence” and then shared a very strange animation of dancing bananas, implying the U.S. is a “banana republic.”

“This irresponsible ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and our legal team looks forward to helping fight for a victory,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel wrote on X.

Trump’s Republican primary opponents also slammed the ruling, instead of viewing it as an opportunity to actually beat the current front-runner. Nikki Haley said the decision should have been left to the voters instead of the judicial system, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis accused Democrats of “abusing judicial power.”

Even Chris Christie, whose campaign platform is basically that he’s a Trump hater, said the ruling was “premature” because Trump hasn’t yet been tried for inciting insurrection. He also said the voters, not the courts, should decide whether Trump becomes president.

Vivek Ramaswamy, whose campaign is but a series of trolly stunts, pledged in a social media screed to withdraw his name from the Colorado ballot if Trump isn’t on it, which sounds more like a massive self-own than a measured protest.

Donald Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that his anti-immigrant rhetoric is being compared to Hitler’s—and then he showed how little that bothered him, repeating much of the same vile language.

“They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country,” said Trump during a campaign rally in Iowa, echoing language from Hitler’s Nazi manifesto. “They don’t like it when I said that—and I never read Mein Kampf.”

“They could be healthy, they could be very unhealthy, they could bring in disease that’s going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world,” the GOP front-runner continued. “And they’re destroying the blood of our country. They’re destroying the fabric of our country.”

Trump has been dipping his toe into fascist rhetoric for years, but in a couple of Veteran’s Day speeches and same-day posts on TruthSocial, he described his Democratic rivals as “vermin”—a word Hitler regularly used to dehumanize his political enemies and the Jewish people.

Then, during rallies last weekend, Trump told supporters that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” and described it as “an invasion ... like a military invasion. Drugs, criminals, gang members, and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities.”

The former president has outright admitted that he would abuse his powers if reinstated to the White House. During a Fox News–hosted town hall earlier this month, Trump said that he wouldn’t be a dictator “except for day one.”

And yet, Republicans seem to like this authoritarian lean. According to a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa poll, nearly half of surveyed Republicans noted that Trump’s recent caustic language would make them more likely to back him in the upcoming election.

According to the poll, 42 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers said that Trump’s “poisoning the blood” comment made them more likely to support him, while a hair more—43 percent—said that his references to “vermin” made them feel just as supportive.

One of the respondents, 71-year-old June Koelker, told the Des Moines Register that Trump’s immigration plan made her more likely to back him, although she disagreed with his “poisoning” comment.

“The ones who are coming in now, with no children, no wife, no family, dressed fine as wine, we’re handing them money and giving them air traffic anyplace in the country,” Koelker told the paper. “And don’t you wonder—they’re all military age—what they’re here for? Our country is not safe now.”

Opponents both domestic and abroad have come out in full force against Texas’s latest immigration law, which gives local judges the authority to deport immigrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The law, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott on Monday, is the amalgamation of Texas Senate Bill 3 and Texas Senate Bill 4. The first-of-its-kind policy appropriates $1.5 billion in border funding and effectively makes crossing the Texas-Mexico border a state crime, creating a new state misdemeanor for immigrants who enter or reenter the state illegally, with violations of the new crimes punishable by up to two years. The law also gives local and state police the authority to arrest immigrants whom they suspect of having unlawfully crossed into the state, as opposed to federal agencies.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the state in an effort to block the state-specific anti-immigration effort, arguing that the bill is unconstitutional and defies federal immigration law, according to the lawsuit.

“Governor Abbott’s efforts to circumvent the federal immigration system and deny people the right to due process is not only unconstitutional but also dangerously prone to error, and will disproportionately harm Black and Brown people regardless of their immigration status,” Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said in a statement.

Abbott has responded that the state is willing to take that lawsuit all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, reported Politico.

But they weren’t the only ones angered by the state’s creeping regulations. The nation’s southern neighbor also came out in fierce opposition to the newly minted law, promising to file a formal challenge.

“The foreign ministry is already working on the process to challenge this law,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

Senator Tommy Tuberville on Tuesday criticized Donald Trump’s comments about migrants—for not being cruel enough.

Trump dived deeper into fascism over the weekend, saying Saturday that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” When asked about Trump paraphrasing Adolf Hitler, Tuberville merely backed him up.

“I’m mad he wasn’t tougher than that,” Tuberville told reporters. “Because have you seen what’s happening at the border? We’re being overrun. They’re taking us over. So a little bit disappointed it wasn’t tougher.”

In addition to being incredibly xenophobic and factually inaccurate, Tuberville’s response is deeply ironic. Complaints about not having strong enough protections for the country are pretty rich coming from the man who spent the past year single-handedly wrecking U.S. military readiness.

Trump also said over the weekend that he would use federal law enforcement funds to combat a “military invasion” at the southern border.

“Drugs, criminals, gang members, and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities,” Trump said Sunday.

He then promised to “shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement, including parts of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and DHS.”

Tuberville, unfortunately, is the only Republican senator so far to take an explicit stance on Trump’s comments. His fellow GOP senators have opted instead for lukewarm rebukes. Senator Roger Wicker said he “certainly wouldn’t have said that,” and Senator Thom Tillis called Trump’s words “unhelpful.”