Donald Trump Lawyer Admits He Is 'Making It Up'

One of Donald Trump's lawyers admitted that "we're all sort of making it up at the end of the day" during a dispute over the definition of the term "insurrection" in a Colorado courtroom on Wednesday.

The Colorado Supreme Court is hearing appeals against a lower court ruling in a case arguing Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The amendment prohibits anyone who has taken an oath "to support the Constitution," and then went on to engage in "insurrection or rebellion," from holding "any office, civil or military." The lower court concluded Trump was "engaged in insurrection" on January 6, 2021, but said the amendment doesn't cover serving as president in a ruling that sparked a legal debate.

Lawsuits aiming to remove Trump from primary ballots under the 14th Amendment have been filed in many states, with former federal prosecutor Adam Kamenstein telling Newsweek the case is "compelling." However, the former president and 2024 Republican frontrunner, has hit back, calling the cases "election interference."

The initial Denver District Court judgment, released in November, is being appealed by both the initial applicants and Trump's legal team. The complainants, a group of Colorado voters, insist Trump is ineligible to serve in the White House again whilst the ex-president's team is disputing the earlier ruling that he "engaged in insurrection."

Newsweek has contacted Donald Trump for comment via the online contact form on his official website.

On Wednesday, Trump lawyer Scott Gessler clashed with Justice Richard Gabriel, one of seven Colorado Supreme Court justices overseeing the case, over the definition of insurrection.

Justice Gabriel asked whether to "prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the United States government" would constitute an insurrection, prompting Gessler to reply: "To prevent the peaceful transfer? I don't think so and I'm not sure your honor. If you look historically in the context of how insurrection was used, it has to be for a substantial duration, not three hours, there has to be some geographical scope, there has to be a goal of nullifying all governmental authority in an area."

The judge challenged this, commenting; "Where's all that coming from? Webster's Third International Dictionary defines it as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or against an established government. So you've added a whole lot of conditions here I'm not sure where they came from."

Gessler replied: "I think probably the best exposition of that was the attorney general's briefs and the authority they provided but I think also if you look at the historical record. Now you're going to tell me, 'Mr Gessler you're making it up.' And I'm going to say, 'Well so did the judge.' And I'll say, 'We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day.'"

During his appearance, Gessler also argued the events of January 6 constituted a riot rather than an insurrection, noting the Trump supporters who stormed Congress to prevent Joe Biden's election win from being certified didn't deploy firearms.

He said: "The events of January were more like a riot, and far less than a rebellion, and insurrection is far closer to rebellion than riot. The use of force did not involve arms, certainly not the level of arms necessary to overcome."

However, this position was challenged by Justice William Hood, another of the seven Colorado Supreme Court judges, who said that around 170 police officers were injured and that "there were a lot of makeshift weapons that did a lot of damage."