Trump lawyer shamelessly says it doesn't matter if Trump is guilty of insurrection (video)

“[T]he president is elected by the entire nation and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they’re guilty of insurrection or not,” she said yesterday on the far-right QAnon channel, Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

Good news! That’s exactly who voted for the people who appointed and confirmed all the judges!


I thought the same thing, just from a slightly different perspective. I am not a lawyer in real life or on TV, but it seems like throwing out the idea that your client might be guilty is a poor defense strategy in general.


I wonder if the Republican justices on the Supreme Court would try to kick the can down the road a bit by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to a primary election because it’s not officially part of selecting electors for the Electoral College vote.

It would almost certainly result in another suit seeking to bar Trump from the ballot in the general election if (when) he wins the Republican nomination, though the justices could hope that something happens before it gets back to them to render the issue moot (Trump somehow losing the nomination or a mainly hamberder diet, old age, and/or lack of athletic activity shuffling him off the mortal coil) or some court officially ruling in a criminal case that Trump is (or is not) guilty of insurrection that they could defer to.

1 Like

… and the same logic might say it doesn’t apply to the general election because each Elector doesn’t have to vote for any particular candidate

but I doubt the Justices really want to intervene after the Electoral College votes either

Waiting until December to say “oh by the way, hundreds of those Electoral Votes don’t count” seems like asking for trouble :thinking:


Doesn’t the Colorado case avoid this? My understanding is CO has a state law that only someone valid in the general election can be on the primary ballet. They could try a narrow ruling that that law is unconstitutional and CO cannot restrict the primary ballet. That would let them avoid ruling on the merits. That seems like a stretch.

Wasn’t this the same reason in another state they allowed him to stay? Because that state doesn’t care how the party picks its candidate, only that the general candidate is valid.

There’s no way SCOTUS dodges this question completely without him removing himself first and eliminating the need to answer the question.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.