Re: “Attack on Pope Leo, posting of Jesus image criticized,” April 14 news story

When in the course of human events, could someone have ever foreseen the time when the president of the United States would have to explain why he posted and unposted a picture of himself as Jesus? Will there be additional low points of this presidency before Congress realizes it is time to face the reality of the president¶¶Ňőap mind and protect what¶¶Ňőap left of the reputation of the office?

Cindy Robertson, Denver

Just when you think President Trump can’t get any crazier, he does (e.g., attacking Iran, insulting the pope, etc.). What will be the crisis du jour tomorrow? I think it¶¶Ňőap time for Congress to begin 25th Amendment proceedings. Please. Before it¶¶Ňőap too late.

Flint Whitlock, Denver

Let’s understand the impeachment clause

Re: “,” April 9 commentary

Kirsten Matoy Carlson is mistaken about the consequences of a guilty verdict by the U.S. Senate after an impeachment trial. She states, “If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to permanently disqualify that person from ever again holding federal office.”

That is not what the Constitution says! states: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…” There is only one vote.

Nowhere in the Constitution with regard to impeachment is there any reference or mandate that after conviction, senators “may” or “can” vote to bar the convicted person from holding federal office in the future. Legal scholars hinge that false opinion on their false understanding of grammar. The word “and” is a conjunction. It joins independent clauses, indicating a connection between the two, especially between items of the same type or class. Removal from office and barring from holding any other office are of the same class and type! In essence, the Senate is saying, “You violated your oath of office and the public trust, therefore you are removed from office and cannot be trusted in any federal office in the future.”

Tom Hubbard, Denver

Tax return takes nonsensical route to Ogden, Utah via USPS

I sent my tax return to the IRS in Ogden, Utah, via certified mail on March 13. It took a vacation and flew to Sarasota, Fla., then to Tampa, then back to Sarasota before making a leisurely trip to its original destination. It arrived there on March 27.

Using flying distance, an approximate 400-mile trip became a 3,550-mile journey.

Conspiracy theorists want to know whether the USPS has been tasked with delaying our refunds as long as possible. Or are they just practicing for what they plan to do with our ballots for the midterms?

Dee Nelson, Centennial

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Hickenlooper said he hoped Republicans would agree to the reforms, which include prohibiting federal agents from wearing masks or making arrests without warrants, as part of a potential deal to avert a partial government shutdown. The proposals match what other in the wake of the Saturday killing of observer Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by .

Pretti’s death prompted Democrats to pull back support for the package of funding bills set for a vote this week ahead of a Friday deadline, but Republicans embracing the reforms could help win sufficient Democratic backing to clear procedural hurdles.

“In the absence of (real reform), the Senate must reject this appropriations bill,” Bennet said during a media call with Hickenlooper and the state’s four Democratic House members. Both senators had already said they wouldn’t vote for more funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The lawmakers were all critical of ICE, which has been aided in Minneapolis by other agencies. U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, who said Pretti’s parents — Arvada residents — were her constituents, called for the resignation or impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver called ICE a “rogue agency” that should be dismantled. (None of the lawmakers called for the abolition of ICE.)

Hickenlooper was optimistic that 15 to 20 Republican senators would support an amendment that included the ICE reforms, which he called “a remarkable opportunity to de-escalate.”

Bennet, whose office recently announced new legislation that would require similar reforms for federal agents, was less hopeful that enough Republicans would support the proposals.

“We’re going to try to do it this week, and we’ll see,” he said. “I’ll make an evaluation by the end of the week, but I have not seen (Republicans) willing to stand up to Donald Trump’s lawlessness yet, and I don’t expect that they will.”

Even if the reforms were to pass, Denver immigration attorney Hans Meyer questioned whether ICE would follow new regulations. The agency has been repeatedly sued — including in Colorado — for sidestepping federal laws related to indefinite detentions and warrantless arrests.

Where Colorado’s members of Congress stand on Homeland Security funding in wake of Minneapolis shooting

Judges, in Colorado and across the country, to provide detainees with bail hearings and to ensure agents have probable cause before making arrests.

"You can't reform a gang of executioners and jackboots," Meyer said.

Meyer spoke with several people detained by ICE in traffic stops in Colorado last week, and he said he had "major concerns" that they were arrested without warrants and in violation of requirements set forth in a recent court order. Detained immigrants are also still being denied access to bail, he said.

In Minnesota, a federal judge grew that he ordered Todd Lyons, ICE's acting director, to personally appear in court later this week.

"Will ICE abide by these new criteria?" Hickenlooper said. "Well, they can't say they don't have enough money." The agency received tens of billions of dollars in new funding last year through the Republican tax-and-spending bill signed by President Donald Trump.

"This isn't (asking) a lot," Hickenlooper said of the reforms, "and if the Republican senators come on board, which I think they will, then it¶¶Ňőap going to be us having people looking over the shoulder, around the corner, watching everything that ICE does, and prosecuting them when they break the law."

Re: “Trump vetoes bill to fund pipeline,” Jan. 1 news story

In his epic recounting of the AIDS crisis in “And the Band Played On,” Randy Schilts wrote, “Politics knows only two principles: loyalty and revenge.”

Congress did its job, writing a bipartisan bill to ensure clean water to southeast Colorado. However, Trump is angry at Lauren Boebert for demanding the release of the Epstein files and he is mad because Tina Peters is getting the justice she deserves.

Even worse, southeast Colorado is strong Republican territory. Trump hurt his own constituents.

If the Republicans in the Senate had done the right thing at both of Trump’s impeachment hearings, he never would have run for a second term. It’s brutally apparent — and this began with Watergate — that Republicans are the “win elections at any and all costs” party.

The only way for this to stop is a massive blue wave at the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Mike Filion, Lakewood

Re: “Veto is Trump’s latest targeted hit on Colorado water,” Jan. 2 news story

The article described Donald Trump’s latest targeted hits on Colorado. It was suggested that some Colorado Republicans blame our state’s Democratic leaders for provoking Trump’s wrath. Examples provided were Attorney General Phil Weiser’s 49 lawsuits against the administration and Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s rejection of requests from the Justice Department to share sensitive voter information.

Totally irrelevant! No president of our United States should exact any wrath against any state at any time for any reason. Full stop!

Terri Tilliss, Parker

As a registered Republican and longtime Coloradan, it pains me to hear you, President Trump, ridicule our state. Our very intelligent voters, jurors, and even our immigrants understand things like the Constitution and even the way birds die ( a billion deaths a year from Buildings!) at a much higher level than our country’s leader. Please pick up a book, a newspaper (like our Denver Post), or watch a PBS show like “Nova.”

Tina Peters broke the law, and jurors, likely many Republicans given the district, found her guilty. She is where she belongs. Pay attention to the important things of running a country.

Steve Lorenz, Littleton

We do not need the DNC in Denver to boost the mayor

Re: “Denver seeks to host the 2028 Democratic National Convention,” Jan. 4 news story

We are living in an attention economy where attention drives capital at least as much as capital drives attention, but national attention will not make Denver vibrant.

Denver’s Vail-to-Yale mayor wants you to believe hosting the DNC would be “for Denver.” Denverites are smarter than that. We know the play, and it isn’t that attention will put money in our pockets. It¶¶Ňőap that our public dollars will buy attention — political capital — for Johnston. No one who actually reads The Denver Post is gullible enough to believe the federal government under Donald Trump will backstop a DNC, let alone a DNC in Denver, the way it did for Chicago under Joe Biden, right?

After all, since Mayor Mike Johnston has pitched Denver’s bid, the Trump administration has announced plans to freeze $10 billion in funding for childcare subsidies, social services and cash support for low-income families in five states controlled by Democrats, including Colorado, claiming widespread fraud throughout those states.

Let¶¶Ňőap be honest with ourselves and clear-eyed about what Denver’s mayor is proposing. Hosting the DNC won’t fix downtown. It won’t deliver “vibrancy.” Hell, it won’t even generate meaningfully more direct consumer spending than Taylor Swift¶¶Ňőap two Denver Eras Tour shows did in 2023 — estimated at $201.7 million, per the Common Sense Institute.

Chicago’s 2024 DNC generated only $200 million in direct spending, as The Denver Post re-reported. Denver already hosts big events that drive hundreds of millions in spending. We don’t need to subsidize a political spectacle to appease Johnston’s ego.

Hosting the DNC is a distraction that neither Denver nor an administration with a poor fiscal-management track record, scrambling to close a massive budget gap with layoffs and furloughs, can afford.

Greg Whitman, Creede

Xcel’s power move was the right call

Re: “Xcel’s power shutdown in Boulder County was unacceptable,” Jan. 4 commentary, “,” Jan. 4 commentary and “Implementing power outages doesn’t solve Xcel’s underlying safety issues,” letter to the editor

There is much vitriol aimed at Xcel for the recent power outages. The guest commentary in Sunday’s paper wrote, “The shutdown appears to have been a precautionary measure to limit Xcel Energy’s liability should aging or insufficiently maintained power lines fail and spark a fire.” I saw photos of power poles toppled by the wind. The poles did not look aged.

Many people seem to think the outages were performed only to limit liability. Of course this is a component, but the actions were to prevent another fire, perhaps not of Marshall proportions, but any fire.

Directly adjacent to this commentary was an article detailing how recovery from the Marshall fire is far from complete, with issues not limited to rebuilding but including the state of survivors’ physical, mental, and economic health.

For the first author attacking Xcel to state that there have been stronger wind events in Boulder, you can proclaim that there has never been an incident until there is. That¶¶Ňőap what happened Dec. 30, 2021.

For people who say there was no wind in their area, do you know about meteorological data collection, how the grid is set up, and what is involved in shutting off areas?

For the letter writer who states that “Xcel needs to be held responsible for improving and upgrading their infrastructure (at their expense)” — read our expense. Could the process have been managed better? Yes. Were the outages damaging to many? Yes. But this does not compare to what we witnessed four years ago.

C. Greenman, Lakewood

Anything bad can happen in gubernatorial race

Re: “Oltmann for Colo. governor? Spare us,” Jan. 4 commentary

As much as I admit to Krista Kafer’s integrity, I think she is in need of a reality check. Joe Oltmann for Colorado governor, or someone who shares his beliefs, is not so far-fetched.

Your once proud Republican brand is now morally bankrupt. It has now become the party of insurrection and sedition, election interference and delusional election peddlers, Trump loyalists and toadies.

If mainstream Republicans and right-leaning unaffiliated voters had any scruples, Trump would not have been elected for a second term.

Unserious candidates, I think not. Those who peddle conspiracy theories, defame innocent Americans and wish death upon their political rivals are parroting their maximum leader. Think again, Krista.

Leonard Juliano, Arvada

Follow the Firewise guidelines in home construction

As an insurance agent in Colorado for well over 20 years, I am very well-versed in Colorado’s guidelines, which are recognized by most, if not all, municipalities and insurance companies as the most effective guide for preventing fires and mitigating fire damage.

I have heard many comments over the past three years regarding what started the fire and whose fault it is. But, I have never heard one comment about the building codes and how close we allow homes to be built.

In new areas, builders erect homes that are, in many cases, less than 15 feet apart. Firewise guidelines for homeowners state a minimum of 30′ of defensible space around your home. Insurance companies use these same numbers when considering whether to issue or renew an insurance policy.

Plus, there are many other recommendations about what can surround your property as far out as 100 feet.

So, until our city planners really want to get serious about fire control and mitigation, and start by requiring a greater distance between new construction, we will see this same disaster occur again. And the likelihood that a change in building codes and zoning requirements will happen is zero, as too much money is involved for everyone concerned,
except for the end user, which is the homeowner.

It’s time we stop speaking out of both sides of our mouths and get real about making a change that will matter.

Bob Lowry, Highlands Ranch

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

What would it take for protests to be effective six months into a presidency that is being used to consistently breach the constitutional limits of the executive branch of government?

The answer may lie in the 2019 Puerto Rican Revolution — an event that was not a revolution but an inspiring display of the power Americans hold in our free and open democracy.

By the time protests peaked in Old San Juan, more than a million people had taken to the streets, spending days and nights banging pots and pans, reading the Constitution aloud, and chanting the simple demand that the governor resign.

Remarkably, he did.

Gov. Ricardo Rosselló Nevares resigned in disgrace, leaving La Fortaleza – the oldest governor’s mansion in the United States – along with key members of the cabinet who had already left saying they felt a “moral obligation to resign.” Both external (the protests) and internal (talk of an impeachment process) pressures weighed on Nevares, but there’s no doubt that if the public had remained on the sidelines, Nevares would have remained in office.

The protests were substantially peaceful, although small skirmishes resulting in arrests, damage to property and injuries broke out when police tried to disperse the crowd with rubber bullets and tear gas. At one point, an interstate was shut down by protesters, and government offices were sometimes inaccessible because of the crowds. Protesters also were creative, taking to the ocean in kayaks and boats after streets outside La Fortaleza were closed for what the government called “security reasons.”

Could what happened in Puerto Rico happen on the mainland? Could peaceful protests really oust a man who took office with the support of a majority of American voters and who rules the Republican Party with an iron fist?

After researching the Puerto Rico Revolution and talking to a cultural anthropologist about what powered the persistence and intensity of protests in the Caribbean archipelago, I believe under the right conditions, Americans could sustain a protest long enough to bring about a voluntary change in leadership.

Carlos G. García-Quijano and Hilda Lloréns are professors of anthropology at the University of Rhode Island, who in on the “core cultural values” that fueled the summer protests.

“That¶¶Ňőap the key part,” GarcĂ­a-Quijano told me in an interview about his and LlorĂ©ns’ research. “Is there an issue or an action by a government that most people in the society will find objectionable, abhorrent or unfair enough that they can all agree for a moment, a brief moment sometimes, to work together despite their differences to protest?”

In Puerto Rico, their research found that the governor’s shockingly offensive messages on a chat group violated core cultural values held dear by most Puerto Ricans – “humility, respect for others and having some sense of shame.” Dissatisfaction with the administration had been building, including after revelations that key members of the government had been arrested by the FBI in the midst of a corruption scandal. But it was truly the disgusting messages that tipped the scales.

So first, Americans would need to coalesce around a core cultural value that Trump has violated. I am not sure if there is an issue that could lead millions of people to leave their jobs and families at home while they traveled to the nation’s Capitol to peacefully demand a resignation. This would be no vacation — hotels would be full, protest organizers would be unable to supply adequate food and water, and for it to be effective, commerce in the city would likely have to stop.

Naively in 2016, I thought Trump’s degrading remarks about women captured by an Access Hollywood video would be the end of the man’s political career. But America’s core cultural values are always shifting. We re-elected President Bill Clinton after he had oral sex several times with a 22-year-old intern in a corridor outside the Oval Office and then lied about it repeatedly. We re-elected Trump after his insurrection attempt.

So, if Americans, on the mainland, no longer value humility and respect, and are OK with shamelessness, what could be the spark that ignites mass peaceful protests in Washington, D.C., and outside his home in Florida?

Trump’s reckless disregard for the Fifth Amendment could be the spark. Americans from all walks of life understand that a cornerstone of our freedom is that the federal government cannot deprive us of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Some Americans seem to be convinced – erroneously – that the Fifth Amendment only applies to U.S. citizens and are thus far unconcerned by the masked, plain-clothed immigration police that are snatching people from the streets and job sites without exercising due process.

If Trump’s police force erroneously snatch and deport a U.S. citizen, it could be enough for Americans to wake up to the dangers of bypassing habeas corpus. If they take you at night with no due process, you won’t even have the chance to prove you are a citizen before you’re on a plane out of the country.

“Every culture, and this is something that anthropologists work with a lot, has different agendas and levels of power, and different ways to exercise their power,”  Cultures have agency, and people change culture and how they use their power,” GarcĂ­a-Quijano said, talking generally about cultural anthropology and not about specific events in America today.

What could ignite a protest today may not be what would do it in a year from today.

But a spark also needs fuel.

It seems unlikely that a single-day organized protest such as “No Kings” could make a difference, even in swaying the policy decisions of Trump. In Puerto Rico, the protesters met the governor at the airport after he returned from a trip, followed him to the fortress, and then persisted for more than two weeks.

“How massive the protests were was important, that was a part of it, but also a big part of it was that they were still protesting day after day. People need to get back to their lives at some point, return to work or school, but those protests, they wouldn’t quit,” García-Quijano said.

I do think Trump is likely to fuel the protests with his disdain for the First Amendment¶¶Ňőap right to speech, assembly, and petition. Trump was quick to deploy the California National Guard on protesters in California after less than a day of riots. Large groups of protesters and others drawn to the chaos decided to vandalize cars, buildings, and assault police as part of the demonstrations in Los Angeles. Others looted stores. Police intervention was needed, but nothing rose to the level of requiring a U.S. military response.

Trump’s heavy-handedness in Los Angeles points to how he would meet mass protests in D.C. The situation would be dangerous and volatile. Leaders of the protests would be responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred if Trump’s military response provoked violent riots, or worse if the police opened fire on civilians. Keeping the protests peaceful in the face of a crackdown on speech would both fuel the outrage and save lives and property.

García-Quijano said they found protesters in Puerto Rico “kept referring to what united them on this issue.”

Americans, however, are more polarized than ever.

President Donald Trump has suffered two assassination attempts, largely because of the rhetoric that he is a danger to America’s constitutional republic. It is one reason why so many journalists are responsibly turning down their language as they write and report about Trump, while also trying to document all the ways he has eroded our Constitution.

Our society cannot move forward thus divided, but I do think we would find common ground in opposing a threat to our Constitution.

Finding a “core cultural value” that we all share and standing up for that right or social norm together could be what saves America.

This is a lot to ask of Trump supporters or even conservatives in general, who will ask where my call for mass protest was when I disagreed with how Biden was handling the Venezuelan refugee crisis. It¶¶Ňőap true, while I called on Biden to secure the border and establish refugee camps, I never called for his resignation or for the kind of mass protests that could have actually gotten his administration to face the crisis head-on. The truth is I remain somewhat unworried about the thousands of asylum seekers who came to America — only a few have proven to be dangerous gang-affiliated criminals. Opposing illegal immigration is simply not a core value of mine.

I would ask that all Americans watch the president’s actions closely in the coming months and resolve that if and when he violates their core values they be willing to stand up for this country.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Bird, vice chair of the powerful Joint Budget Committee in the state legislature, is the third Democrat to announce their bid for the congressional seat. It is one of the most competitive districts in the country and could prove pivotal to which party controls Congress in 2027.

In an interview before her announcement, Bird highlighted her experience in the legislature passing laws to fully fund public schools for the first time in a decade, to ease new construction by reforming construction liability regulations, and to create new tax credits for higher education.

She said economic stability and cost of living will be keystones to her campaign — while also taking shots at Evans for, in her view, putting President Donald Trump’s agenda ahead of his constituents. Democrats have repeatedly hammered Evans for a lack of in-person townhalls. He held a telephone town hall in April.

“The more I thought about the situation that we find ourselves in today, and watched what this administration is doing, with Gabe Evans’ support, one thing became clear to me: There’s going to be a time when people ask, ‘What did you do when Donald Trump came back into office for a second term?’ ” Bird said of her decision to run. “Especially in light of what he’s doing to our country, I know that I want to have the right answer.”

She would not commit to investigations or impeachment inquiries into Trump, but did not dismiss them outright. Asked twice, Bird said she would focus on “volatility” in Washington and how it is affecting the economy and cost of living, and pledged to “show up and be accountable” to constituents.

“I can’t tell you the number of people who have thought they were going to be able to retire, have seen their 401(k)s take a nose dive, and now have no idea how long they’re going to need to stay in the workforce,” Bird said.

The 8th Congressional District stretches from Thornton to Greeley. It was drawn following the 2020 census. Voters there elected Democrat Yadira Caraveo as their first member of Congress in 2022, and ousted her in favor of Evans in the following election. Each race was determined by fewer than 2,500 votes.

Bird said she didn’t have any particular thoughts on what tipped the district in the victor’s favor in the two elections, but would commit to “being everywhere” during the campaign to break it in her favor and best represent the people there.

Bird also contrasted her approach to Evans and blasted him for voting for a spending package that would in a district where nearly rely on the public health insurance.

A nonpartisan analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model found the GOP spending package would vastly benefit the richest Americans, , and lower the take-home income of the poorest. Republicans argue the package would spur economic growth in the country, which the analysis did not factor in.

Bird will have to win a Democratic primary next summer before she faces Evans in the general election. Caraveo, the former congresswoman, announced last month that she intends to win back the seat. State Rep. Manny Rutinel, a Commerce City Democrat, announced his bid to oust Evans just weeks after the new congressman took office in January. It helped him win an early fundraising advantage.

Bird said she respects anyone who throws their hat into the political ring — but that her six years at the state Capitol, and time on the Westminster City Council before that, set her apart.

Vizguerra is not a threat to safety — she runs a local nonprofit, works at Target and has raised four children, three who are U.S. citizens.

Vizguerra is not a drain on society — there’s no indication Vizguerra has ever been on any type of welfare.

So why was the 53-year-old grandmother detained by federal officials outside of a Colorado Target this week and shackled in a chain and handcuffs? And why are local Republicans smearing her good name as if she is a gang member freshly arrested for brandishing a weapon?

We don’t have to guess.

President Donald Trump is on a mission to eradicate immigrants from the United States who came here illegally — all 10 million to 15 million of them — regardless of what they contribute to our communities. Since he first launched a bid for president in 2015, Trump has intentionally painted all illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals. He sees no difference between a mother working hard to support four children and a Tren de Aragua member engaged in organized criminal activity.

The stated mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not changed, according to its website: “to protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.”

According to Denver’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, their goal is still “to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of noncitizens who undermine the safety of our communities.”

Vizguerra is not a threat to national security or public safety. She should not be deported and we call for her immediate release from the ICE detention facility in Aurora.

Vizguerra has repeatedly been granted stays of deportation so she could remain in America with her family.

Arresting her this week only makes a mockery of the hard, dangerous and serious work ICE officials perform every week to keep Americans safe from violent criminals who entered the country illegally. The federal employees at ICE did not sign up for their jobs to terrorize communities and steal grandmothers from their families without even a goodbye.

We have questions about Vizguerra’s legal status. Her family says she was working at Target but the Writ of Habeas Corpus her attorneys filed on her behalf admits that Vizguerra has no legal status in the U.S. Those two things are incompatible under current law.

America’s undocumented workers face this crush of obligation versus legality daily. For decades leaders — both Republicans and Democrats — have refused to provide a path to legal work or legal status but also have failed to secure the border from new illegal crossings.

Now it¶¶Ňőap too late. For the next four years Trump will deport as many illegal immigrants as he can, ignoring decades of wisdom from past leaders who have said splitting up families and driving people from good jobs into hiding where they often turn to crime to make ends meet is not good for communities.

Since 2011, Vizguerra has been fighting a deportation order that stemmed from her 2009 arrest in Arapahoe County for a fake Social Security card found in her bag by deputies who had pulled her over for a traffic violation. She has unsuccessfully appealed the order, but has repeatedly been granted stays of deportation, in essence, legal permission to remain in America despite her deportation orders.

In 2017, shortly after President Donald Trump first took office, her application for renewal of her stay of deportation was denied, and she took shelter in the First Unitarian Society Church in Denver claiming sanctuary from removal.

Her story gained national attention, and we supported her efforts to remain with her young children and wrote an editorial that called for immigration reform that would secure the border and also provide the millions of people living in the shadows in fear of deportation a path to legal status and legal employment. We wrote: “Presented with the known facts at hand, we ask what would be the point of deporting Vizguerra? What would the United States of America gain from such a cruel, though legal, action? Would enforcement be worth the harm done to (four) innocent American children?”

Trump has failed to ever articulate a single answer to those questions because the answer of course is that there is no point of deporting Vizguerra, there is nothing for the U.S. to gain from this cruelty and the harm goes far beyond just her family.

The best case we can make against Vizguerra being permitted to remain in the United States is the simple fact that a judge ordered her removal and she disobeyed it before she was granted her first stay of deportation and then again in 2017 when she claimed sanctuary. As a society we cannot ignore judicial orders — the price we pay for that of course is the judge’s wrath as he doles out sentences for contempt of court.

We can’t see how Trump could make the argument that Vizguerra undermined the judicial system with a straight face, however, as he is now engaging in an orchestrated attempt to undermine the judicial branch, lashing out at judges he disagrees with, calling for their impeachment and ignoring their orders.

Undermining our judicial branch’s authority is a direct threat to the core of our republic — three co-equal branches of government working in tandem to preserve American’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If Trump wants America to abide faithfully and without deviation to the courts, he must lead the way with his own actions first. Then we will be glad to have a conversation about whether or not the actions of those who sought sanctuary from judicial deportation orders pose a threat to America’s judicial order great enough to warrant their removal from this country.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s opposition parties moved Wednesday to impeach the president over the shocking and short-lived that drew heavily armed troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers climbed walls to reenter the building and unanimously voted to lift his order.

Impeaching Yoon Suk Yeol would require the support of two-thirds of parliament, and at least six justices of the nine-member Constitutional Court would have to endorse it to remove him. The motion to impeach, submitted jointly by the main liberal opposition Democratic Party and five smaller opposition parties, could be put to a vote as early as Friday.

Yoon’s senior policy advisers and Defense Minster Kim Yong Hyun offered to resign as the nation struggled to make sense of what appeared to be a poorly conceived stunt. The Democratic Party submitted a separate motion to impeach Kim, who allegedly recommended the martial law declaration to Yoon.

In his speech announcing the abrupt order Tuesday night, Yoon vowed to eliminate “anti-state” forces and continued to criticize the Democratic Party’s attempts to impeach key government officials and senior prosecutors. But martial law lasted only about six hours, ending after the National Assembly voted to overrule Yoon and his Cabinet formally lifted it before daybreak Wednesday.

, who hold a majority in the 300-seat parliament, called on Yoon to quit immediately or they would take steps to impeach him.

Yoon’s martial law declaration “was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” a party statement said. The order “was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”

What happens if Yoon is impeached?

Impeaching him would require support from 200 National Assembly members. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. But they could seek additional votes from Yoon’s ruling conservative People Power Party.

The 190-0 vote that rejected martial law included the votes of 18 lawmakers from the PPP, according to National Assembly officials. Party leader Han Dong-hun and Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, also a member, criticized Yoon’s martial law declaration.

If Yoon is impeached, he will be stripped of his constitutional powers until the Constitutional Court rules. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who holds the No. 2 position in the South Korean government, would take over presidential responsibilities. Han issued a public message pleading for patience and calling for Cabinet members to “fulfill your duties even after this moment.”

The Constitutional Court has only six incumbent justices following three retirements. That means all six must approve the impeachment motion for it to succeed. The court includes justices appointed after Yoon took office, so the Democratic Party is expected to speed up the process of exercising its right to recommend two of the three new justices.

Yoon’s martial law declaration, the first of its kind in more than 40 years, harkened back to South Korea’s when authorities occasionally proclaimed martial law and other decrees that allowed them to station soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places such as schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations. Until Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, such scenes of military intervention had not been seen since South Korea achieved a democracy in the late 1980s.

Dramatic hours at the parliament

After Yoon’s declaration, troops carrying full battle gear, including assault rifles, tried to keep protesters away from the National Assembly as military helicopters flew overhead and landed nearby. One soldier pointed his assault rifle at a woman who was among protesters outside the building demanding that the martial law be lifted.

It wasn’t clear how the 190 lawmakers were able to enter a parliamentary hall to vote down Yoon’s martial law decree. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik were seen climbing over walls. As troops and police officers blocked some from entering, they didn’t aggressively restrain or use force against others.

No major violence was reported. The troops and police personnel were later seen leaving the grounds of the National Assembly after the parliamentary vote to lift the martial law. Woo said: “Even with our unfortunate memories of military coups, our citizens have surely observed the events of today and saw the maturity of our military.”

Under South Korea’s constitution, the president can declare martial law during “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states” that require the use of military force to restrict the freedom of press, assembly and other rights to maintain order. Many observers question whether South Korea is currently in such a state.

The constitution also states that the president must oblige when the National Assembly demands the lifting of martial law with a majority vote.

A presidential official said Yoon decided to impose martial law to resolve a political deadlock and did it in the middle of night to minimize its effect on the economy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

Some experts say Yoon clearly violated the constitution. While martial law allows “special measures” to restrict individual freedoms and the authority of agencies and courts, the constitution does not permit the functions of parliament to be restricted.

But in following Yoon’s declaration on Tuesday, the South Korean military proclaimed that parliamentary activities were suspended and deployed troops to try to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly.

Park Chan-dae, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, called for Yoon to be immediately investigated on charges of rebellion over the way he deployed troops to the parliament. While the president mostly enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office, the protection does not extend to allegations of rebellion or treason.

In Seoul, the streets were busy Wednesday, like a normal weekday.

Tourist Stephen Rowan, from Brisbane, Australia, who was touring Gyeongbokgung Palace, said he was not concerned. He heard about calls for the president’s resignation and expected demonstrations.

“I would have been concerned if martial law had stayed enforced,” he said.

Natalia Slavney, research analyst at the Stimson Center’s 38 North website, which focuses on Korean affairs, said Yoon’s imposition of martial law was “a serious backslide of democracy” that followed a “worrying trend of abuse” since he took office in 2022.

___

Associated Press Writer Jennifer McDermott contributed to this report.

District Court Judge Kandace Gerdes heard four hours of testimony in a hearing called in a lawsuit filed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado. The leak had been reported separately last week by the state Republican Party and Jena Griswold, a Democrat.

A lawyer for the Libertarian Party argued that the leak, discovered by a prominent 2020 election denier, compromised the election’s integrity. The suit also seeks the destruction of affected election equipment.

Griswold, meanwhile, announced she would be hiring a “well-regarded” law firm to conduct an outside investigation into how the information was posted to her office’s website — in a hidden tab on a spreadsheet — for months before it was discovered.

In court Monday, attorneys representing Griswold argued that the passwords were not enough to jeopardize voting systems and that the Libertarians’ request would sow “chaos” across the state as clerks prepared for polls to close at 7 p.m. Tuesday. Griswold’s office has said that in order to use the passwords, a person would need physical access to the equipment, along with additional passwords that were not included in the released spreadsheet.

During the hearing, no evidence was presented indicating any voting systems were compromised or had been improperly accessed. First Deputy Attorney General LeeAnn Morrill said suggestions otherwise were based on “supposition” and “fear mongering.”

Last week, after the breach was revealed, Griswold immediately came under fire. Regardless of how Gerdes rules on the Libertarian suit, other election officials are bracing for additional litigation and fallout from the release of the passwords, which came just days before a presidential election that some elements of the .

Matt Crane, the executive director of the , told The Denver Post that some Colorado Republican officials were already planning to challenge the certification of ballots in the state.

“The software leak is a valid leak for people to be concerned about,” Crane, a Republican who formerly served as the Arapahoe County clerk, said. “But I think it¶¶Ňőap mitigated. … But bad actors will do what they do. We know that.”

Griswold calls leak “regrettable”

The release of the passwords was revealed Oct. 29, when the Colorado Republican Party announced that a spreadsheet posted on included a hidden tab specifying the codes. The party also released a redacted version of an affidavit from an unnamed person who found the passwords in the spreadsheet.

The affidavit was filed by Shawn Smith, a retired Air Force officer who to undermine the 2020 election results. The Post obtained a copy of the affidavit Monday, and it was later described by Smith during the court hearing.

Smith testified that he discovered the passwords while reviewing the spreadsheet on Oct. 24. In his affidavit, Smith indicated he’d accessed the spreadsheet twice in October and once in August, though the affidavit itself doesn’t make clear when Smith identified the presence of the passwords.

In February 2022, that Griswold had committed election crimes and that anyone involved in election fraud should be executed.

It’s unclear how the state Republican Party — led by another election denier, chairman Dave Williams — became aware of Smith’s claims. Smith testified that attorney John Case contacted him to ask him to prepare an affidavit about his findings, though he did not indicate how Case knew to contact him. Case, who was in the courtroom Monday, declined to answer when asked by a reporter how he learned of Smith’s findings.

In a statement Monday, Griswold’s office said officials learned of the password leak on Oct. 24 — the same day Smith said he learned of it — from a voting machines vendor.

After conducting an assessment of how widespread the breach was, officials determined that 34 of Colorado’s 64 counties were affected.

Griswold’s office didn’t alert the public — or county clerks — about the passwords’ release until after the Colorado GOP announced it. In an interview Monday, Griswold said she regretted both the release of the passwords and that county clerks learned of it via the media, rather than from her office.

All of the released passwords have since been changed, she said, and the state’s elections remain secure.

“We discovered an error that is regrettable and took as thoughtful and measured of steps to address it (as we could), in an atmosphere that is full of threats and disinformation,” Griswold said.

Griswold’s office confirmed that the staff member who created the spreadsheet — which was posted online June 21 — “amicably left” their job well before the passwords were discovered.

She said her office was also contracting with Garnett Powell Maximon Barlow & Farbes, a metro Denver law firm, to conduct an outside investigation into what happened. She said the timeline for that investigation was still being determined.

Reviewing security footage

Christopher Beall, Griswold’s deputy, testified in court Monday that the state was reviewing 24-hour surveillance footage, among other security monitoring, to determine if anyone had improper physical access to voting equipment in Colorado’s counties. Those procedures were put in place after former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters improperly accessed voting systems after the 2020 presidential election.

“We’re continuously working on building trust in our elections,” Griswold told The Post. “Colorado’s elections are secure. We have multilayer security at every step of the way. We have strong security measures, internally and externally, and we are always trying to move as quickly as possible in the environment.”

While machines are used to count votes, people still cast votes on paper ballots. And counties across the state conduct reviews called risk-limiting audits that compare the ballots to tallied results after each election.

Griswold has faced Republican ire for her criticism of former President Donald Trump and election conspiracies. One man pleaded guilty last month to making death threats against her and others. Earlier this year, state House Republicans sought to impeach her for calling Trump an insurrectionist and other criticisms made from her official position.

Soon after the breach was made public last week, Sen. Kevin Van Winkle, a Highlands Ranch Republican, that the Legislative Audit Committee hold an emergency meeting to assess if the state’s election systems were compromised. Doing so would provide a venue to address questions such as whether the breach was intentional when the passwords were posted, he wrote.

The committee voted on party lines against holding a meeting. Despite Democratic majorities in the legislature, that committee has a 4-4 bipartisan split. Its members could still raise the issue at the next normally scheduled meeting in December.

Rep. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican who chairs the committee, declined to comment on the decision until after the election. Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, a Fort Collins Democrat and vice chair of the committee, said the tight timeframe of the request, along with assurances from multiple agencies that there’d been no security compromise and that passwords have been switched, made him question the need for expediency.

He also pointed to the independent investigation being commissioned by the Secretary of State’s Office as likely providing more information for the committee to explore — on its normal timeline.

“With all respect to Sen. Van Winkle, it’s really hard to understand this request as anything other than a partisan request to undermine voters’ confidence, and I think that’s the last thing we need to be doing in this moment,” Boesenecker said in an interview.

It is inevitable that the political frenzy surrounding the resignation of President Joe Biden as a candidate for re-election and the tribulations of former President Donald J. Trump, including his two impeachments by the House of Representatives, his subsequent acquittals by the Senate, and his criminal proceedings, is compared to that which existed in 1973 and 1974 with respect to Watergate.

The overall atmosphere of divisiveness is common to both eras, although few know or remember that President Nixon was never charged with a crime, was never impeached by the House of Representatives, and never was convicted by the Senate of an impeachable offense. He, as did President Biden, succumbed to enormous political pressure from both sides of the aisle “for the good of the country.”

What is the most important legacy of the Watergate experience on today’s events that are often declared by both political parties and the mass media to be the most dangerous and important in the history of the United States?  Was it the Supreme Court¶¶Ňőap historic limitation of the application of executive privilege, the pressure by members of Congress that forced a president¶¶Ňőap resignation, the confirmation that there are indeed terrible consequences for bad acts or that transparency in government is our ally not our enemy?

No, in my opinion, the most significant lesson of Watergate is the recognition that our form of government continues to have the strength and resilience to overcome the transgression of our leaders, political crisses, predictions, and warnings of national doom and government collapse.

Watergate has come to mean much more than a botched burglary by James McCord and four others on the night of June 17, 1972, at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The core issue of Watergate was whether President Nixon committed obstruction of justice by participating in a cover-up (plugging the leak) of wrongful actions committed by individuals (the Plumbers) who were associated with the White House.

I had the privilege of serving as one of the president¶¶Ňőap lawyers on the Watergate legal defense team, reporting to Special Watergate Counsel James St. Clair, a tough Boston trial lawyer. The 20-lawyer White House defense team consisted of our group, the White House Office of General Counsel, including Our Watergate defense team included, among others, Loren Smith, later to become the chief counsel of the two Reagan presidential campaigns and the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claim. We faced about 200 lawyers employed by the Senate Select Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Our team’s primary White House political contact was General Alexander Haig, the White House chief of staff, later the Allied supreme commander in Europe.

My service at the White House started in early 1974, soon after St. Clair took the reins as the principal Watergate defense counsel. I had responded to a notice that invited DOJ lawyers to apply to the new Watergate defense team; following, I was almost immediately interviewed at the Old Executive Office Building by Geoff Shepard, who has since authored fascinating in-depth books about Watergate. Upon receiving the job offer, I accepted it without calling my wife and resigned from my position as a trial lawyer in the general litigation section in the Civil Division at the Department of Justice.

I was then 30 years old and not that far away from my graduation from the William Mitchell College of Law in Minneapolis coincidentally the alma matter of then Chief Justice Warren Burger — a Nixon appointee.

Our team was close-knit, although as in real life, some were more equal than others — despite the fact that we were all lawyers. Make no mistake about it – Watergate was a political animal or a zoo of political animals. We worked day and night together to do what we thought was legally right, attending meetings of the judiciary committees, writing sections of court briefs, appearing at Grand Jury and court proceedings, and interviewing witnesses. We argued on behalf of the Office of the President for a strong presidential executive privilege. We were under an immense amount of pressure — pressure that remains difficult to describe in words.

I accompanied Jim St. Clair when he argued before the Supreme Court that Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, was not entitled to enforce subpoenas that had been issued, in the context of a criminal trial against seven Watergate figures, for 64 specific taped recordings of presidential conversations. We lost resoundingly in the Supreme Court on July 24 on a 9-0 vote, the opinion of which was authored by Chief Justice Burger.

His opinion established that a claim of executive privilege is reviewable by a court and the claim of executive privilege by a president is not absolute. Nonetheless, in retrospect, we had helped to set the table for similar arguments and somewhat similar results a half-century later, in the now controversial Trump v. United States decision of July 1 of this year.

I have often thought about the impact of those times on my family and the country and occasionally relive those exciting, tumultuous times. The daily tension was palpable even without the presence of cell phones, computers, and social media. The daily developments were captured in detail in the pages of The Washington Post and hometown papers across the United States and shared in buses, bowling alleys, and cafes across the United States. There also were lighter days, such as our children Justin and Heather’s (ages 5 and 1) participation in the White House Easter Egg Roll, our excursion on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia, and very late-night dinners and conversations with Loren Smith about chasing UFOs.

Our future as a nation depends on our common sense and the vigorous exercise of the rights and obligations of each of the three branches of government, which were demonstrated during Watergate. It does not depend on personalities.

I am proud to have been an integral part of a historic legal team. We worked as your lawyers to help our country handle a major constitutional crisis. One is never the same after having such an experience.

Since then, most of the major figures of the Watergate era. including Richard M Nixon, Senator Sam Ervin , and Chief Justice Warren Burger, have passed. However, the United States has survived. I am a much better person for having stepped forward to help in 1974 and hope that my involvement helped. I would do it all over again, and without doubt there will be need again in the history of this great country.

Jim Prochnow is a principal shareholder in the Denver Office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a global law firm. He is primarily a food, drug, and trial lawyer. He and his wife, Virginia, live in Denver. They moved to Colorado after Watergate to ski and for the Colorado sunshine. They have three children.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The professor at the in Boulder plans to beef up lectures on current events, likely starting with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity and a discussion of the legalities of presidential impeachment, all in hopes of providing a more foundational understanding of the current political climate.

“We’re in a constitutionally revolutionary moment where things are changing drastically,” he said.

Spencer has instructed students on the intricacies of long-established law and the thorough reasoning that guides Supreme Court decisions only to see a string of major, precedent-setting rulings overturned in the last few years, he said.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has recently struck down or altered foundational laws that have guided the nation for decades, including eliminating the federal right to an abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, weakening federal agencies’ power to interpret the law by overruling the Chevron decision last month, and by granting presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution earlier this month.

How are law professors in Colorado taking on the task of educating the next generation of attorneys during unprecedented legal times?

Professors from Colorado’s two law schools, at CU Boulder and the University of Denver, told The Denver Post that’s the question buzzing around legal scholarship circles as everyone spends the summer preparing for a fall semester of uncertainty and learning on the fly.

“What foundational cases do we need to reconsider and how do we educate the next generation of lawyers to deal with a situation where the law seems to be shifting under their feet?” said Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, an associate law professor at CU’s Law School.

Rethinking curriculum

A new Supreme Court decision can cause major changes in certain areas of law, leading professors to scrap their syllabi and start again.

That’s always happened to some degree, said Kevin Lynch, the executive associate dean for academic affairs at DU’s .

But, he said, “There definitely is more of a sense this year that things are really changing a lot. The listserv of administrative law professors has been blowing up nonstop.”

Administrative law, which Lynch specializes in, is the law governing federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The precedent set by the Chevron decision in 1984 allowed the federal government to more easily regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. It was overturned by the six conservative Supreme Court justices, with the three liberal justices dissenting.

Forty years ago, environmental groups brought a case to the Supreme Court challenging a Reagan administration effort to relax power plant and factory regulations. The Supreme Court ruled that judges should play a limited, deferential role when evaluating the actions of agency experts who interpreted ambiguous statutes.

In 2024, opponents of the Chevron decision argued it gave too much power to experts who work in the government instead of judges.

The political right has long been moving toward the idea that the administrative state shouldn’t exist, Lynch said.

“There’s a sense that we’re seeing the start of dismantling the administrative state,” Lynch said. “The idea is agencies shouldn’t be saying what the law is, Congress should be doing that. For those of us who favor a functional federal government that can solve problems, just saying, ‘Congress will figure it out and say what the rules are’ — we have a pretty dysfunctional Congress. That’s maybe where it’s headed. It’s pretty disheartening.”

The current court’s overruling of the Chevron case is expected to have large implications for the country; the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer warned it would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.” For law students, it means what they learned in administrative law classes last year is likely no longer accurate, Lynch said.

The class is important enough to be a DU law school requirement, he said.

“Will we still require it if the Supreme Court dismantles the administrative state and there are no longer agencies or they’re dramatically scaled back?” Lynch said. “That might require us to rethink broader curriculum.”

“Learning experience for us all”

For the upcoming semester, Skinner-Thompson — who teaches administrative law at CU, among other courses — said he and his students will be learning together. The Supreme Court’s decisions are sweeping and new. How they will play out in the everyday world is still unknown.

“I’m not going to have all the answers,” he said. “This will be a learning experience for us all.”

Instead of only focusing on teaching legal cases, Skinner-Thompson said it’s becoming increasingly important to educate students on the language and discourse around different facets of law.

For some students, Skinner-Thompson said that might look like understanding the conservative perspective versus the libertarian perspective versus the progressive perspective.

“We can teach them what the law says currently, but if they don’t understand the bigger philosophical debates happening, they’re not going to be able to anticipate the next big case,” he said.

Skinner-Thompson’s colleague Spencer agreed, noting that as politics are seen as increasingly driving Supreme Court decisions, there will have to be more of a focus on political education, too.

“They have to at least be aware of the argument that law is just whatever powerful people say it is,” Spencer said. “I never want my students to be that cynical, but I think they need to understand that the law works to create a stable framework when political winds shift, and the counterargument is, do the political people just get to decide what the rules are all the time?”

Skinner-Thompson feels empowered to help his students navigate a confusing legal world.

With scheduled for the end of July, the uncertainty and newness around the nation’s shifting legal framework can make students nervous.

In 2022, the National Conference of Bar Examiners students taking the bar exam would not be required to be familiar with that term’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In 2023, the conference how it develops questions for the bar exam — and how it can take up to three years.

Students are drawn to law school, Spencer said, because they see it as a place where there is a stability of ideas and a sense of power.

In this moment of ambiguity, Spencer said he hopes to help students make sense of the world around them.

In the long term, he said that it may be time to consider whether teaching constitutional law is something he wants to keep doing.

“This might be a little cynical, but it takes a lot of work and effort to track all of this,” Spencer said. “It’s disheartening as a scholar to say, ‘Here’s what the research says, but here’s a case that matters, and I can’t explain why (the Supreme Court) did it.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.