Info for you

Info for you
Menu

Criminal Lawyer Explains Why 14th Amendment Argument Won’t Stop Trump: ‘An Offensive Argument’

Criminal defense attorney David Schoen, who represented Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial, tossed a wet blanket on Democrat attempts to bar the former president from running in 2024 through the 14th Amendment.

Speaking in a podcast appearance with the award-winning journalist Sara Carter, Schoen dismissed the argument that Trump could be eliminated from the ballot due to his having allegedly engaged in “insurrection.”

In fact, he described the effort as “offensive” and “dangerous.”

“Their fallback position is President Trump should be disqualified from holding office because he supported an insurrection and therefore under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is disqualified,” he explained.

RELATED: Trump Campaign Slams Bogus 14th Amendment Claims From Adam Schiff To Keep Him Off Ballot

The 14th Amendment Argument Up In Flames

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a rarely cited Civil War-era provision that bars individuals from holding office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

It’s an argument even some Republicans have made.

Schoen dismisses the idea, however, citing two counterpoints which we have focused on repeatedly at The Political Insider – the fact that Trump has not been charged with “insurrection” and that from a legal aspect, he was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial regarding the matter.

“I think it’s very, very dangerous,” Schoen said, countering those cheering on the attempt to bar the leading Republican candidate from being an option during the democratically held elections in 2024.

“I believe that even if President Trump were convicted in these cases, they still wouldn’t be a bar to him serving as President of the United States again,” he said.

“He was not charged with insurrection or sedition,” Schoen voiced. “They could have. There’s a federal statute that allows them to charge him with that.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment did not include a charge of inciting insurrection, despite the House January 6th committee recommending that specific charge.

RELATED: Now Even Republicans Are Trying To Keep Trump Off the Ballot With 14th Amendment Theories

Dangerous And Offensive

Democrat Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) suggested that the 14th Amendment reference to insurrection could bar Trump from ever being elected to office again.

He specifically used the word.

In an interview with the left-leaning MSNBC, Schiff pointed out that the 14th Amendment bans those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding elected office and that it “fits Donald Trump to a T.”

Think about what they’re trying to do here. The term “insurrection” when used in this case is a wholly media-fabricated fantasy. It’s never been an accurate description of the events that took place on January 6th, 2021.

But the media beat the term to death and now you know why. Legacy media uses the phrase ad nauseam, Democrats repeat it and then attempt to point to it as evidence that Trump is in violation of the 14th Amendment.

They’re colluding on a make-believe legal argument.

It’s completely manufactured reasoning. Not only was Trump never charged with it, but even the New York Times has pointed out that “the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime.”

From a legal standpoint – the only one that matters – not a single person engaged in insurrection that day.

“Just factually, the argument is offensive because it ignores the result of the duly conducted impeachment trial,” Schoen added.

“I think it’s offensive, I wish we would get rid of the argument,” he concluded. “I think it’s got to be dismissed.”

And the witch hunt against Trump continues.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Criminal Lawyer Explains Why 14th Amendment Argument Won’t Stop Trump: ‘An Offensive Argument’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Tagged