Originally Posted by MDawg View Post
It's rare that appellate courts reverse issues of fact. In CO all the way up the courts have held that Grump did engage in insurrection or rebellion. The issue of law that was reversed was over an interpretation of the 14th Amendment - whether presidents are subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are or are not an “officer of the United States.” The trial court in CO said no, the Supreme Court of CO said yes.

So unless the US Supreme Court decides that the CO trial court was completely out of line with ruling that Grump engaged in insurrection or rebellion, they'll just consider the more narrow legal issue of whether or not the 14th Amendment or CO's equivalent constitutional statute bar an insurrectionary former President from running/being President again. I don't see them de novo trying the entire insurrection issue again, unless some other courts rule that Grump did not engage in insurrection, and mixed rulings get sent up to the Supreme Court, then they might have to decide for themselves on the underlying insurrection issue.

We'll know how narrow the focus will be soon enough.
Trump was not charged or convicted of insurrection. Until he is convicted of insurrection....there was no insurrection on his part. Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.