Donald Trump's Lawyer Compares Right-Wing Fans to Stalkers

Donald Trump's attorney has compared the relationship between the former president and far right-wing extremists to a stalker and their victim during a Colorado court case over whether the current GOP front-runner is eligible to run again in 2024.

The Colorado lawsuit argues that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the state's 2024 primary ballot because his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election amounted to insurrection.

Under the 14th Amendment, introduced following the Civil War, anyone who previously took an oath to support the Constitution, then engaged in insurrection or rebellion is banned from holding any office, civil or military. Some scholars have argued that it prevents Trump, who swore to uphold the Constitution during his presidential inauguration, from running for the White House again in 2024, though he has called the claims nonsense and election interference.

The Colorado case, brought be four Republican and two unaffiliated voters, began on October 30. Scott Gessler, Trump's attorney and former Colorado secretary of state, played down links between the former president and unnamed extreme right-wingers who support him.

"That's at best unrequited love on behalf of the far right-wing extremists, who may like President Trump, may be inspired by President Trump," Gessler said. "But there's no evidence that it ever went the other way. And to call that a relationship is like calling a stalker and their victim having a relationship. It is just wrong."

Gessler went on to compare the relationship to that between Jodi Foster and John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in a bizarre attempt to impress the Hollywood star.

Members of a number of organizations classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have been convicted over their involvement in the January 6, 2001, U.S. Capitol Hill riot.

Gessler also argued that violent disorder on January 6 started before Trump concluded his speech, meaning it couldn't have been the immediate trigger.

"The violence began well before President Trump finished his speech," he said. "So it's difficult to see how the January 6th speech caused this.

"The most one can discern is that he [Trump] pressured, and he wanted other people to pressure, Vice President [Mike] Pence to send the electoral count back to the states for 10 days."

Newsweek has reached out to Trump for comment via the press inquiry form on his official website.

The case against Trump was presented by attorney Sean Grimley on behalf of the six petitioners.

"Through his actions and his actions alone, Donald Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding office again," Grimley said.

"He spearheaded a multifaceted scheme to stay in power by any means necessary. The scheme culminated in a violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th during the constitutionally mandated counting of electoral votes, and now he wants to be president again. The Constitution does not allow that."

Since the Colorado hearing began, judges in Michigan and Minnesota dismissed similar cases, though they didn't rule directly on whether Trump is ineligible to run again. Both cases concluded that who can run on primary ballots is a matter for state parties, though that doesn't rule out further legal challenges ahead of the presidential election.

Adam Kamenstein, a partner with the Los Angeles-based law firm Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein and a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek in August that the argument for disqualifying Trump from running in 2024 over the 14th Amendment is "trenchant and compelling," but added it is "unlikely to gain broad acceptance."