Griffin was convicted for trespassing on restricted areas of the U.S. Capitol grounds.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a former rodeo rider and founder of Cowboys for Trump, Couy Griffin, cannot hold public office in New Mexico after participating in the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a former rodeo rider and founder of Cowboys for Trump, Couy Griffin, cannot hold public office in New Mexico after participating in the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The court rejected an appeal brought by three residents of New Mexico who argued that Griffin was disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his participation in the riot, which resulted in his conviction for trespassing on restricted areas of the U.S. Capitol grounds.
, a former rodeo rider who started Cowboys for Trump , is the only person who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol to be removed from office using the 14th Amendment .
Couy Griffin was serving on the Otero County Commission when he participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attempt by Trumpés supporters to disrupt Congressé certification of President Joe Bidenés 24-year victory .
Griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of illegally entering restricted areas of the U.S. Capitol grounds .
At his sentencing, District Judge Trevor McFadden said Griffin sh actions were in “grave tension” with the oath he took as elected official to uphold the Constitution .
Griffin , who was given a 14-day jail sentence, told the Supreme Court the events on Jan. 6 were not an insurrection and barring him from holding office is a violation of his First Amendment rights .
The challenge to Griffin was brought by three New Mexico residents with help from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , the watchdog group behind the Colorado case against Trump .
Noah Bookbinder, the group sh president , said the court’s rejection of Griffin’s appeal ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause to state officials .
Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection , Bookbinder said .
Accuracy
Couy Griffin was convicted of illegally entering restricted areas of the U.S. Capitol grounds .
Griffin was given a 14-day jail sentence.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal by Couy Griffin, who was removed from office in New Mexico because he participated in the January 6th insurrection.
New Mexico State District Court Judge Francis Mathew permanently prohibits him (Griffin) from running for local or federal office.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Supreme Court let stand a New Mexico judge's ruling barring Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin from local public office because of an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Griffin was found guilty and convicted of wrongdoing when in fact he was merely given a 14-day jail sentence for his actions on January 6th. Secondly, the article states that Griffin's challenge to his removal from office had been a test run for Trump opponents who successfully argued to the Colorado Supreme Court last year that Trump is disqualified from the presidency by that same Civil War-era provision. This statement is also misleading as it implies that Griffin was removed from office because of his political beliefs, when in fact he was removed due to his participation in an insurrection on January 6th. Lastly, the article states that liberal and conservative justices voiced concern about allowing one state to decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate but disagreed about how exactly the amendment could be used to disqualify a federal candidate. This statement is misleading as it implies that there was no consensus among justices on this issue, when in fact both liberal and conservative justices agreed that states should not have the power to decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
The article implies that Griffin's challenge to his removal from office had been a test run for Trump opponents who successfully argued to the Colorado Supreme Court last year that Trump is disqualified from the presidency by that same Civil War-era provision. This statement is misleading as it implies that Griffin was removed due to his political beliefs, when in fact he was removed because of his participation in an insurrection on January 6th.
The article states that liberal and conservative justices voiced concern about allowing one state to decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate but disagreed about how exactly the amendment could be used to disqualify a federal candidate. This statement is misleading as it implies that there was no consensus among justices on this issue, when in fact both liberal and conservative justices agreed that states should not have the power to decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
The article falsely claims that Griffin was found guilty and convicted of wrongdoing for his actions on January 6th. In reality, he was merely given a 14-day jail sentence.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by stating that the Supreme Court's decision to let stand a ban against Cowboys for Trump co-founder using the 14th Amendment is 'a victory for democracy'. This statement implies that those who oppose this decision are not democratic, which could be seen as an attack on their political beliefs. Additionally, the author uses language such as 'Cowboys for Trump' and 'January 6th insurrection', which may evoke strong emotions in readers and potentially influence their opinions. The article also mentions that Couy Griffin is a former rodeo rider who started Cowboys for Trump, suggesting that his background could be used to discredit him or make him seem less qualified for public office.
Couy Griffin, a founder of Cowboys for Trump, is the only person who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S Capitol to be removed from office.
The article mentions that Couy Griffin is a former rodeo rider who started Cowboys for Trump.
The Supreme Court's decision to let stand a ban against Cowboys for Trump co-founder using the 14th Amendment is 'a victory for democracy'.
Couy Griffin was removed from office in 2022, marking the first time an elected official was booted under the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban' because of the US Capitol riot.
Griffin had already been found guilty of a January 6-related crime when he was disqualified from holding office.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the appeal of a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office because of his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Couy Griffin was convicted of trespassing on Capitol grounds after a bench trial in March 2022 and acquitted of a second misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. A civil trial on the disqualification question was held later that year.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office because of his role in the January 6 insurrection. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Couy Griffin's removal was solely due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection when he had already been convicted of trespassing on Capitol grounds and acquitted of a second charge. Secondly, the article states that Griffin was disqualified under Section 3 because he violated his oath by engaging in an insurrection. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Griffin's involvement in the January 6 insurrection was solely responsible for his removal from office when there were other factors involved such as his refusal to certify legitimate election results and a standoff with state election authorities. Lastly, the article states that New Mexico's top court dismissed Griffin's appeal on procedural grounds. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that the dismissal was solely due to procedural issues when there were also substantive issues involved such as whether January 6 should be considered an insurrection and whether Griffin violated his oath by engaging in it.
The article states that Griffin was disqualified under Section 3 because he violated his oath by engaging in an insurrection. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Griffin's involvement in the January 6 insurrection was solely responsible for his removal from office when there were other factors involved such as his refusal to certify legitimate election results and a standoff with state election authorities.
The article states that New Mexico's top court dismissed Griffin's appeal on procedural grounds. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that the dismissal was solely due to procedural issues when there were also substantive issues involved such as whether January 6 should be considered an insurrection and whether Griffin violated his oath by engaging in it.
The article states that Couy Griffin's removal from office was solely due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection when he had already been convicted of trespassing on Capitol grounds and acquitted of a second charge. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Griffin's involvement in the January 6 insurrection was solely responsible for his removal from office.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court sided with Trump in a similar case. However, this statement is not accurate as it implies that the court ruled in favor of Trump when they actually only ruled against him on his attempt to be removed from office based on his January 6-related crimes. Secondly, there are several instances where inflammatory rhetoric is used by the author such as
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the appeal of a former New Mexico county commissioner who was removed from office because of his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection
A prominent right-wing conspiracy theorist, Griffin was part of the Capitol insurrection mob
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable.
> a case that was similar to the one the high court recently decided involving former President Donald Trump
Griffin slammed the process that led to his disqualification and also criticized
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The article by John Fritze and Marshall Cohen discusses the Supreme Court's decision not to review a ruling that removed a New Mexico county commissioner from office over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. The authors have financial ties with Couy Griffin, who is mentioned in the article as being involved in the riot.
Couy Griffin was one of several people charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot.
The Supreme Court won't review ruling that removed New Mexico official from office over January 6 insurrection
Former New Mexico county commissioner Couy Griffin participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot.
Griffin was kicked out of office in September 2022 over his participation in the Jan. 6 riot following a ruling from New Mexico State District Court Judge Francis Mathew that permanently prohibits him from running for local or federal office.
The Supreme Court ruled this month that states do not have the ability to bar Trump or other candidates for federal offices from the ballot, but different rules apply to state and local candidates.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Griffin was kicked out of office following a ruling from New Mexico State District Court Judge Francis Mathew but fails to mention the specific reason for his removal. The judge ruled that Griffin participated in an insurrection after taking his oath at the U.S. Capitol and violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is not mentioned in this article.
The article states that Griffin was kicked out of office following a ruling from New Mexico State District Court Judge Francis Mathew but fails to mention the specific reason for his removal. The judge ruled that Griffin participated in an insurrection after taking his oath at the U.S. Capitol and violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is not mentioned in this article.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased in favor of Couy Griffin and his actions on January 6. The author uses phrases such as 'political persecution', 'patriotism' and 'honored to be there' that depict Griffin's participation in the riot as a positive or justified act, rather than a violation of the law and an attack on democracy. The article also does not mention any negative consequences or criticisms of Griffin's actions, nor does it provide any context for why his presence at the Capitol was problematic.
Griffin contends that he entered the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 without recognizing that it had been designated as a restricted area
He was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served
On the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack, Griffin cast himself as the victim of political persecution
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest regarding the topic of Jan 6 riot. She participated in it and expressed her support for it multiple times throughout the article. This compromises her ability to act objectively and impartially on this issue.
God is really allowing me to experience some amazing days.
`Jan. 6 was a day like no other. It was a day where a type of patriotism was expressed that I've never seen before, and I was honored to be there.`
`We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office`, the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion.`
