The Maine Trump Decision: Atrocious

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023

(Dec. 29, 2023) — Well, faithful P&E readers, here we go again.  Yesterday, on Dec. 28, 2023, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows – a registered Democrat and perhaps one of the most anti-President Trump, pro-progressive and biased governmental officials in the nation – issued her 34-page “decision” determining that Mr. Trump’s name would be excluded from the Maine presidential primary election ballot. 

As for her political preferences, this should give one a small hint. And with regard to the image of Brandon and Shenna Bellows now “going viral” on social media platforms, note that Bellows explains that “President Biden [aka, Brandon] has a strong selfie game as evidenced by this picture he took with my phone!”  Yeah…, nothing telegraphs impartiality more than a selfie of Brandon and Bellows taken on Bellows’ smartphone…, held by the Goof.

In this offering, your humble servant will attempt to address the issues in a slightly different way.  Rather than dissecting the Maine “decision” paragraph-by-paragraph – as was done in addressing the Dec. 19, 2023 Colorado Supreme Court per curiam 4-3 decision in Anderson v. Griswold, discussed and critiqued here – the following will focus on Ms. Bellows’ overall claim of “impartiality” and freedom from “bias” against President Trump.  Readers interested in the details of her decision should read it and, against the backdrop of the Anderson decision, reach their own conclusions.

Because her decision must be viewed against the general backdrop of the Anderson ruling, if not already done, readers are encouraged to first review your servant’s prior post.  It will put into better perspective the defects of this recent Maine decision consistent with, in particular, the dissenting opinions in the Anderson case.

Translation: this offering will use a little less “legalese,” but will arrive at the same conclusion as regarding the Colorado decision, i.e., that there is approximately zero likelihood that either the Colorado per curiam majority decision or the Bellows decision now released in Maine would be upheld on appeal, eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Both determinations are so lacking in fundamental legal analysis and respect for the history of the 14^th Amendment – not to mention Ms. Bellows’ absolute, almost giddy, disregard for President Trump’s due process rights under the Constitution – that even a first-year law school dropout would not be tempted to make the arguments now being touted as “essential” and “unavoidable” to protect “democracy” from the threat of Orange Man Bad. 

Bull… roar.

At the beginning of the decision, Bellows states: “I conclude that Mr. Trump’s primary petition [seeking placement on the Maine presidential primary ballot] is invalid.  Specifically, I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is invalid because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Laughably, regarding her denial of President Trump’s motion that she recuse on the grounds of bias – purportedly because it was not filed “timely” – she claims that even if she had not denied the motion as untimely, she “would have determined that [she] could preside over this matter impartially and without bias.  My decision is based exclusively on the record before me, and it has in no way been influenced by my political affiliation or personal views about the events of January 6, 2021.” (Emphasis added)

Really?  Seriously?  What on Earth other than something like that would you expect a person – particularly a Democrat – in her position to say?  The record and the “receipts,” as they say, paint an entirely different picture. 

Her “decision” reeks of personal animosity and disdain, not only for President Trump, but for the rule of law, the Constitution and the history and intent of the 14^th Amendment.  And while she claims “I do not reach this conclusion lightly,” her decision displays that it is not only “wrong,” it also shouts “lightweight.”

Indeed, one might be tempted to also speculate that the final “decision” – extensively footnoted and linked to the Westlaw^® legal resource database – was composed by persons other than Shenna Bellows, although she did sign it.  She is not a lawyer, but earned a B.A. degree at Middlebury College (Vermont) with “high honors” for her thesis on “economic and environmental sustainability.”

Whether her “high honors” B.A. degree and thesis on “economic and environmental sustainability” well-qualifies her (or not) to examine and analyze the legal interstices of Clause 3 of the 14^th Amendment and whether that clause is “self-executing” or not, given the “riding circuit” opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase in “In re Griffin,” 11 F. Cas. 7, at 39 (C.C.D. Va. 1869) (No. 5,815) (“Griffin’s Case”)…, is quite another question.  For the curious, the details of that case, and why it is relevant to the underlying debate, can be found in Colorado Supreme Court Justice Samour’s dissent in Anderson.

But I digress.  Mea culpa.

The one bright spot in the otherwise dark and incoherent Bellows document is her statement in conclusion that she “will suspend the effect of [her] decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal under 21A, Section 337 has expired.” 

Clearly, Trump’s lawyers intend to file an appeal of Bellows’ ruling, so the matter will percolate until the Maine Superior Court rules.  The Maine presidential primary voting date is March 5, 2024. Given that some time must be allowed for the final printing of ballots, one would assume that the Maine Superior Court would hand down a ruling before a printing deadline expired, but that is mere speculation. 

And of particular note here – as opposed to in Colorado, where the decision at issue came from an appellate tribunal – the Maine Superior Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction.  Moreover, it is the only Maine court where the right of jury trial is available.

Soooo…, ya think Mr. Trump’s lawyers might be considering a demand for a jury trial?  How do you think that might work out for Bellows?  Watch for her lawyers to argue that no jury trial is warranted and should be denied since there are, purportedly, “no material disputed fact questions,” then move for the judge, whoever that might be, to render “summary judgment” in her favor on the law alone.

The bottom line here is that rogue, biased Democrat secretaries of state throughout the nation, not just in Maine or Colorado – “bellowing” loudly that they are “defending democracy” by excluding President Trump from their ballots – are instead doing precisely the opposite: denying to large portions of the electorate – including members of the Maine Superior Court jury pool – the right to cast their ballots for President Trump. 

The purported rationale for what in actuality is their raw and unambiguous election interference is the un-adjudicated, due process-lacking allegation that President Trump was “guilty” of engaging in an act of insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, by telling his supporters to “peacefully protest” the results of the 2020 election. 

Conveniently, the Democrats forget that President Trump was acquitted by the Senate on his second Pelosi impeachment boondoggle of “incitement of insurrection.” More on that later.

President Trump’s lawyers, in a letter to Bellows seeking her recusal on the grounds of bias, produced “receipts” in the form of several “tweets” she posted on Elon Musk’s new “X” platform in 2021 and 2022.  Those receipts flatly contradict her hard-to-believe claim that she could preside over the dispute “impartially and without bias…”

You, P&E readers, be the judge:

●  On Feb. 13, 2021, Bellows posted: “The Jan. 6 insurrection [sic] was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election [sic]. Today 57 Senators including [Maine Senators] King & Collins found Trump guilty. That’s short of impeachment [sic] but nevertheless an indictment [sic]. The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.”  Note that there are several “[sic]” signals your servant has inserted, discussed hereafter.

●  On the same day, Feb. 13, 2021, reacting to the acquittal – not conviction on impeachment for “incitement of insurrection” – Bellows posted: “Not saying not disappointed. He should have been impeached [sic: he was impeached by the house, and acquitted by the Senate]. But history will not treat him or those who voted against impeachment [sic] kindly.” (Emphasis added)

●  On Jan. 6, 2022, one year after the riot – not to be confused with an “insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” the sine qua non of an “insurrection” or “rebellion” under the 14^th Amendment – she posted this: “One year after the violent insurrection [sic], it’s important to do all we can to safeguard our elections… [referencing]: WMTW TV @WMTWTV Jan. 6, 2022 Maine secretary of state seeks to protect election officials, ballot and voting machine integrity.”

Where to start, where to start? 

Quite apart from the shallow reasoning of her “decision,” any one of those posts by Bellows eviscerates any claim of “impartiality” or freedom from “bias” in addressing the bogus claim that Clause 3 of the 14^th Amendment bars President Trump from office, let alone the combined venom of the posts she directs at him.  Bellows not only displays a visceral animosity toward President Trump, she also reveals her ignorance of the law, the Constitution and fundamental rules of grammar.

As a preliminary matter, your humble servant posits, as he has done in the past, that words are important, even in “X” posts.  Your servant is thus reminded of the observation by Mark Twain when commenting on words and on the importance of selecting the “right” as opposed to the “not right” word, “[T]he difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter – it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”  Ms. Bellows needs to read more Mark Twain.

By way of example, as to her first “X” post, she labels the Jan. 6 riot an “insurrection.”  Wrong.  As noted in Justice Samour’s dissent in the Colorado case, unless and until President Trump were to be charged and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2383 – the specific federal statute criminalizing “insurrections” and “rebellions” and declaring persons convicted thereunder to be disqualified from federal office as required under the 14^th Amendment – he cannot, consistent with his due process rights, be declared “guilty” of participating in an “insurrection.” 

Parenthetically – and further demonstrating the carelessness that typifies the decision – she cites (p. 26 of the document) as the purported federal statute governing rebellions and insurrections as “18 U.S.C. § 2883” instead of the correct citation, noted above, 18 U.S.C. § 2383.  There is no such statute in the federal criminal code corresponding to her typo-afflicted citation. 

While this might seem to be a trivial point, in a decision purporting to have the gravitas and immense importance she claims, and one that comes to a conclusion which she asserts she has not “reached lightly,” it is posited that a better proofreading of the final product could have been performed.  That task should have been done by Ms. Bellows or whoever concocted the document.

To this point, has U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland – clearly, no fan of President Trump – seen fit to indict or charge President Trump
under that statute?  Let us say it together: “No.”  Might he yet charge President Trump?  Who knows? But remember, Garland is a Beltway Democrat, so do not bet the farm that he would not do so, if only “just for lawfare sport.”

And because, in Justice Samour’s view, the 14^th Amendment is not “self-executing” – i.e., it requires a statute enacted by Congress to “trigger” its application – it is well beyond absurd to claim that President Trump is today “guilty” of “insurrection.”  Indeed, as already noted, he has been acquitted by the Senate on Pelosi’s second impeachment folly of being culpable for “incitement of insurrection.” 

And while that charge might not be considered in legal circles to be a “lesser included offense,” barring on “double jeopardy” grounds a second, different “prosecution” of President Trump for “insurrection,” a court might conclude otherwise. 

Specifically, because 18 U.S.C. § 2383 also criminalizes incitements to insurrection, and Mr. Trump has already been acquitted by the Senate on the second bill of impeachment of “incitement of insurrection,” Garland might be holding off because he can “see the writing on the wall” and wants to avoid what would be, manifestly, a “piling on” by his “Department of Just-Us.”  Or, as disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok noted during the “Russia collusion” debacle: “There’s no big there there.”

Accordingly, Bellows’ claim that he is disqualified because – without a due process trial or anything even remotely resembling one – he is guilty of “insurrection” is pure, unadulterated, not to mention laughable, ipse dixit: “It is so because I say it is so.”  Memo to Bellows and her legal advisors: wrong yet again.   

Her first “X” tweet also claims that, even though he was acquitted by the Senate on Pelosi burp # 2, the acquittal was “short of impeachment, but nevertheless an indictment.”  Again, Bellows displays her ignorance, albeit in a “tweet.”  President Trump’s ordeal in the Senate came after he was, in factual reality, “impeached.”  The proceeding in the Senate was a “trial” coming after the House impeachment, which trial…, dare I repeat myself…, resulted in his acquittal. 

Undaunted, as well as grammatically-challenged, Bellows nonetheless asserts that the “acquittal” was an “indictment.”  If that were true, it must have come as a total surprise to Merrick Garland.  No doubt she would excuse her lazy selection of words by claiming that she meant it in the “generic” or “general” rather than “legal” sense.  Again, words are important.  Nice try, Ms. Bellows…, but no cigar.

Moving to her second “X” post of the same day and “tweeting” about the Senate acquittal, Bellows admits: “Not saying not disappointed. He should have been impeached [sic]. But history will not treat him or those who voted against impeachment [sic] kindly.” (Emphasis added)

Let us examine Bellows’ carelessly selected words more closely.  By initially announcing, via a double-negative, that she was “not saying [that she was] not disappointed…,” she plainly concedes that she was disappointed.  A blind Martian could see and identify that admission as a confession of bias against President Trump.

She then adds that “[h]e should have been impeached.”  Clearly, she has no understanding of the distinction between “impeachment” – the clear and exclusive prerogative of the House of Representatives – and “conviction” upon the assertion of charges under a resolution or bill of impeachment transmitted to the Senate for trial.  Here, of course, and to reiterate, President Trump was not convicted but instead was acquitted by the Senate of the impeachment allegations.

Underscoring her bias and unvarnished disdain for President Trump, she then adds: “… [H]istory will not treat [President Trump] or those who voted against impeachment [sic] kindly.”  Disregarding Bellows’ persistent confusion and conflation of an “impeachment” by the House and a “trial on a bill of impeachment” by the Senate, even to a cynic, those words sound vaguely like a threat or warning.  Indeed, one might even be tempted to speculate that those words in her second tweet have now blossomed into reality for President Trump.  Take that, Orange Man Bad!

Her final “X” tweet, claiming that she is “doing all … [she] can to safeguard our elections…” is sublimely ironic…, and hypocritical.  By going full “ipse dixit” in total disregard for the law, for the history of the 14^th Amendment and most of all, for President Trump’s due process rights in booting him from the Maine primary ballot – with the Maine primary election now less than 70 days away – is disgusting.  It is downright un-American.

On the other hand, increasingly, the Democrat Party, along with its apparatchiks and sycophantic stenographers in the print and electronic media, seem to be more than just comfortable with un-American activities.  If you doubt it, after finishing this post, go read Mark Levin’s new book: “The Democrat Party Hates America.”

Among those activities to be put on the list one might include the eradication of the southern border and the incentivizing of millions of illegal aliens to invade the country.  Also included might be the lifting of sanctions and rewarding of hostile foreign nations with billions of dollars, which dollars go to fund military attacks on Americans and our allies by proxies of the hostile nations …, and even facilitating the enrichment of uranium…, but only for “peaceful purposes,” of course.  Thank you, Barack Obama and John Kerry.

And not to be omitted from the list, of course, would be unlawful, unconstitutional and plain stupid efforts to preclude the democratic election of a person who millions of Americans still believe should be the President of the United States by declaring him “disqualified” from even being placed on the ballots of states governed by Democrat secretaries of state like Shenna Bellows.  Placing him on the ballot actually gives him a chance of being elected…, yikes!  That is an election horror not to be tolerated.

The list could go on and on, but to what end?  The results of the dispute will not be determined by what your humble servant or others offer here at The P&E.  But then again, it can’t hurt.

Referring back to Mark Twain’s advice about selecting the “right word” as opposed to the “almost right” word when describing things, suffice it to say that the Bellows decision – apart from whomever the author might be – can be described in one word: “atrocious.” 

Although it has emanated from a Democrat who claims to be “impartial” and “unbiased,” a pretty good argument can be made that, from Mark Twain’s viewpoint, those are clearly the “wrong” words to describe Ms. Bellows’ product.