Trump lawyer accidentally admits on air that her boss may be 'guilty of insurrection'

An attorney representing former President Donald Trump appeared to make a Freudian slip during a recent interview defending the ex-president's ballot eligibility.

During an appearance on extreme right-wing streaming network Real America's Voice, Christina Bobb — a former Trump administration official and anchor for the far-right One America News Network — appeared to suggest that her boss should be allowed on the 2024 Republican primary ballot even if he incited an insurrection.

"The president is elected by the entire nation and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not," Bobb said.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

The former president has already been disqualified from both the Colorado and Maine Republican primary ballots for being in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (more commonly known as the insurrection clause). That clause explicitly states that no one will be eligible to hold any federal "civilian or military" office who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States, or given "aid and comfort to the enemies thereof."

At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, the insurrection clause was written specifically to prevent former members of the Confederacy from holding federal office after the Civil War, though Trump's 2024 candidacy marks the first time the clause has ever been applied to a presidential candidate. The fate of Trump's Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is expected to hear the Anderson v. Griswold case that disqualified Trump from the Colorado ballot, and Trump's legal team has already appealed Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' disqualification to a Maine superior court.

While Bobb argues voters should the final deciders of a political candidate's fate, the Constitution's provisions governing the eligibility of presidential candidates are clear. As former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman wrote in a recent op-ed for the Independent, the insurrection clause is not a matter to be decided by voters any more than the eligibility of a hypothetical candidate who is running for a constitutionally prohibited third presidential term.

"[P]rerequisites to hold the office of the presidency are not technicalities," Akerman wrote. "They are strict mandates created by voters’ duly elected representatives through a constitutional process, that must be followed before the voters make their choice."

READ MORE: 'Not up to the voters': Watergate prosecutor dispels 'myth' about Trump's ballot eligibility