So, here we go again…
Another lawsuit, this time in California, to disqualify Trump from the 2024 election.
The suit in California was filed by attorney Stephen Yagman on behalf of someone identified as "A.W. Clark."
In the suit, Yagman argues:
"There is only one issue that would need to be litigated potentially, and that issue is did Trump engage in insurrection or rebellion…I think the answer to that question for anyone who has eyesight is that he did."
The entire key to that statement is "I think the answer…"
It does not matter what he thinks; it only matters what he can prove.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:
"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."
Most reasonable constitutional experts agree that in order for this provision to be enacted, it must be proven in a court of law, not someone's opinion of the actions taken or that occurred.
Other than the left, most experts are saying that trying to use this against Trump before due process is utterly ridiculous and a very loose interpretation of what our Founders and Framers intended.
When you hear arguments, such as the one made by Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, you can see how they are relying on a twisted perception of the amendment.
Magliocca stated:
"It's hard to see how Trump as the driver of the thing wasn't engaged in it.
"The only way you can say he wasn't would be if you say look, in effect the only people engaged in it were the people who directly engaged in violence or destruction of property. That's a pretty narrow definition which also would be ensnaring the followers and not the leaders."
In one case, the plaintiffs actually argued that they should be able to disqualify Trump and then allow him to fight their measure in court.
They stated, "Your determination would not deprive Mr. Trump of due process of law. He can challenge an adverse determination in court."
That, in my opinion, is utterly ridiculous.
I have discussed this here before, but it is worth reviewing again.
I have stated many times that I think Trump never should have been at the January 6 rally that took place before the riot.
But it seems clear to me that other people made plans to capitalize on this event for their own nefarious reasons.
The argument of Trump denying the results as the driver behind the riot does not wash for me simply because of the comments made by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Jerry Nadler, Karine Jean-Pierre, and a host of other Democrats, who all openly stated they thought Trump was an illegitimate president and that the election has been stolen from Hillary.
Trump never ordered anyone to riot, quite the opposite, actually. He specifically asked them to peacefully protest at the Capitol.
Now, could this be turned around against Trump in court? Absolutely.
I continue to point to Trump saying he will pardon the January 6 defendants if he is elected in 2024.
If he admits to that on the stand, prosecutors will immediately claim he is offering aid and comfort to insurrectionists, and that would more than likely have him disqualified.
But, until he does that or it is proven in court, I believe this is a very dangerous twisting of the Constitution by Democrats.
This is an utter nightmare for the GOP because we just may see a liberal judge allow this to happen, then there are appeals, which would more than likely have the case before the Supreme Court.
If that happens, it means this drags out for the entirety of the primary, which would be chaos for the GOP. We could literally have a candidate who wins the election but then gets disqualified, so all those votes that were cast for Trump would be disallowed.
Do they run another primary? Do they hand it over to who finished second? Regardless, more lawsuits are going to follow, which is exactly what Democrats are banking on.
