Colorado Supreme Court calls it an insurrection.
I saw it myself on TV. The goal was to intimidate Congress and stop the peaceful transfer of power. Both police and rioters were inured and died. I call that an insurrection.
GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell described it on the Senate floor, after the second impeachment vote:
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president, and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole.
President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. He didn't get away with anything. Yet."
Meanwhile, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has sat quietly for over a century. In 1866 Congress and states did not want to restore Confederate states to the union and have those states fill offices with people who would try to undermine the government from within. The Constitution added a qualification for office:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Every word in the Constitution can be defined and interpreted into meaninglessness, but the text certainly appears straightforward on its face. If Trump (who we saw take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution) engaged in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to an insurrection (such as we saw and heard on January 6), he engaged in insurrection. Therefore, he is ineligible to hold office.
But maybe it wasn't really an insurrection. GOP politicians looking for a reason to defend Trump say it was arguably a peaceful demonstration with a few troublemakers, possibly Democratic false flags or FBI provocateurs.
There is a problem with that position. Trump isn't disavowing January 6. Trump has a different frame. He attacks Democratic prosecutors and biased courts. Look at them! He calls the Colorado court decision a partisan effort to keep the likely winning candidate -- him -- off the ballot. This was in my inbox yesterday evening:
This will go to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court could take a giant step to re-establish its credibility as a non-partisan court. They could affirm the Colorado decision, thus demonstrating that they are not puppets of Trump.
Affirming Colorado would make sense. They have a window of time, before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes. Republicans have replacement candidates ready to go. As supposed textualists, they have the text to support them. They have lifetime appointment so don't need to fear the short term wrath of GOP primary voters. Most GOP senators would be secretly very pleased. Trump openly undermines the credibility of courts -- all courts -- so they would be defending the judicial branch. It would be a clever and cynical act done to help Republicans, because the GOP could now choose among stronger general election candidates, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.
They would be doing what McConnell talked about -- Trump facing future justice -- but failed to do.
I don't think they will do it. They really are beholden to Trump.
I do not think this Court has the courage to do the right thing. They'll punt. They'll say something to the effect that Donald Trump has not been proven to have led an insurrection and so therefore cannot be kept off the ballot just because some people think he is an insurrectionist.
Of course, Donald Trump is doing everything possible to delay that day in court and receipt of actual due process -- including solicitation of the Court to rule in favor of delay.
Not that Justice Thomas would have the integrity to recuse himself from such a case (his wife is a principle participant in the planned insurgency), but even if he did, the balance will still be 5-3. There is an outside chance that Justice Roberts might still have enough concern for the integrity of the Court and the Constitution to agree with the Denver Court. But since a 4-4 vote would let the decision fall back to the previous court, I would guess this to be good reason for Thomas to pretend he is "objective" and not recuse himself.
SCOTUS will say Trump was not a Member of Congress nor an officer of the United States nor a state official. It won’t reach the issue of insurrection. As you wrote, SCOTUS is beholden to Trump and will let him walk in the name of democracy.