CNN’s Abby Phillip Points Out Judge Said ‘In Pretty Plain English’ Trump ‘Engaged in an Insurrection’

CNN anchor Abby Phillip pointed out that the judge who ruled ex-President Donald Trump must remain on the ballot in Colorado also said “in pretty plain English that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection.”

State Judge Sarah Wallace ruled on Friday night that Trump won’t be taken off the ballot over a 14th Amendment challenge. But on Friday night’s edition of CNN NewsNight, Phillip said that ruling relied essentially on a “technicality” and the judge implicated Trump in insurrection:

Did a judge just suggest that Donald Trump is actually above the law? That’s tonight on NEWSNIGHT.

Good evening. I’m Abby Phillip in Washington.

And we start the hour with a question. Was Richard Nixon actually right when he said, when a president does it, that means it’s not illegal? Well, a judge may have just said in one very specific and important way that, yes, he might be right.

Tonight, Sarah Wallace says that Donald Trump gets to stay on the ballot in Colorado, this despite the judge finding and saying in pretty plain English that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection during the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

Now, the court found that Trump intended to incite political violence, that Trump wanted to direct it at the Capitol, and that Trump’s plan was to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and that Trump was not, in fact, protected by the First Amendment when he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength.

We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: But while the judge did find that Trump’s intent was clear, she also says that the Constitution’s intent is not. Read her reasoning, and it sounds an awful lot like what you might call a technicality is the very thing that protected Trump, that the 14th Amendment does not actually specifically mention the office of the president.

So, the judge in her ruling said that she was reluctant to embrace stripping Trump’s name from the ballot without, quote, clear, unmistakable indications. That’s what the Constitution demands. But follow her logic and the judge may have just set the table for presidents, past, current, and future, to potentially commit insurrection, to direct other people to do another January 6th without fear of accountability.

In a statement, the Trump campaign said in part, quote, these cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats.

Watch above via CNN NewsNight.