Why using Jan. 6 report to decide Trump’s disqualification from the ballot isn’t 'problematic': analyst

Following Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows December 28 decision to remove Donald Trump from the state's 2024 GOP primary ballot — days after the Colorado Supreme Court made ruled the same — some scholars predict the decisions may ultimately work in the MAGA hopeful's favor.

Immediately after CNN's Brianna Keilar interviewed Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold Monday, January 1, the host spoke with CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and former January 6 committee investigative counsel Marcus Childress about the importance of cases to disqualify Trump from the presidency.

"Elie first, if you can react to something that we heard from the secretary of state, which was, even if politically, there are ramifications to the decision coming out of Colorado — and we see it, right? We see this is working in Donald Trump's favor. She says, 'That's not the point. It's about following the law.' What do you think about that?"

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Honig replied, "Well, I agree with that absolutely. And I think this is why the US Supreme Court has to take the case. And Secretary Griswold said that as well. And I agree. This is why we have a supreme court. We have a constitutional issue. What exactly does the 14th amendment mean? How exactly does it work? We don't know the answer. We've never gotten clear guidance on those questions from the Constitution itself, from Congress, or the supreme court. The stakes are enormous. This will go directly to the heart of our voting process. And we're seeing disparity all over the map in the way the 14th amendment is being interpreted and applied. The majority of states who considered these challenges have rejected them. But now we have two, Colorado and Maine, who have upheld these challenges and thrown Donald Trump off the ballot. So, we need a legal answer, we need some certainty before the 2024 election."

Keilar said, "Marcus, Maine's secretary of state is citing your January 6th committee's final report as support for her contention that he is an insurrectionist. Is that problematic at all considering that Trump hasn't been convicted yet or charged with insurrection specifically, but also was acquitted in the impeachment?"

Childress replied, "What we haven't seen here is a rebuttal of the facts that underlie our January 6th report which was used in Colorado and Maine, which is former president trump spread the Big Lie, he was a conspirator in having people come to washington, DC for the rally on January 6th. He directed them to the Capitol and did not tell them to go home or stop when they were engaging in violence. Those are the facts that underlie the insurrection claim. And what stood out to me from Secretary Griswold is she said we're only here because the former president incited an insurrection. And that's the part that's really stood out to me about these appeals. We're not seeing arguments of facts here. And Elie knows this, as trial attorneys, when the facts are on your side, you hammer the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, then you argue the law and what the law should be. And what we're seeing here from former President Trump is that he's arguing about the 14th amendment and Section 3 and who it applies to, and whether state courts are the right parties to enforce this clause, but not arguing that he wasn't involved with the actual attack on the Capitol on January 6th."

READ MORE: 'This behavior is unacceptable': Officials face threats after Trump barred from ballots

Watch the video below or at this link.

Why using Jan. 6 report to decide Trump’s disqualification from ballot isn’t 'problematic': analystyoutu.be