'Skeptical' George Conway now 'completely sold' on Colorado ruling: 'It's strong evidence'

George Conway had been skeptical of the legal theory that Donald Trump should be disqualified from office, but he told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he was persuaded after reading "trivial and weak" dissents in a Colorado Supreme Court ruling striking him from the state's ballot.

The court overturned a district court judge's ruling that found the former president had incited an insurrection Jan. 6, 2021, but said it wasn't clear whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was intended to cover the presidency, and Conway said he was "completely sold" on the theory by the dissents.

"I have to say, I have been a little skeptical of this theory until last night," Conway said. "Now I'm completely sold. I was sold by the dissents. I have been skeptical of this theory not because I found anything that [legal experts] said was wrong. I read their article and said, wow, that makes a lot of sense. I read what Judge [Michael] Luttig said in the Atlantic and the judge has been talking my ear off about it. I just thought, well, it's a little too good to be true. I really do want to see Donald Trump beaten at the polls, so I have been a little skeptical."

"Then I read the dissents," he added. "They are so unbelievably weak that I'm now convinced there really isn't an argument against what the Supreme Court did."

The former president is scheduled to stand trial in March in Washington, D.C., on charges that he conspired to overturn the election, interrupted Congress and deprived Americans of their right to have their vote counted, but special counsel Jack Smith notably did not charge him with inciting an insurrection – but Conway said that shouldn't matter.

"The constitutional provision says nothing about convictions," Conway said. "It could easily when they wrote that provision say someone convicted of insurrection cannot hold public office. It does not say that, so that means the courts are free to determine on their own, based upon the valid judicial processes, what is an insurrection and whether the facts meet that, and what happened here was there was a five-day trial where he got to participate and the judge made extensive findings. A judge that ruled for him on a bogus ground found that he engaged in insurrection, found this by not just a preponderance of the evidence, which lowers your civil court standard, but by clear and convincing evidence, which means it's way more than not."

"It's strong evidence," he added. "You don't see the dissents challenging those findings at all, and in fact, there's no basis to challenge the finds. When you go to the majority opinion and read the 30 or 40 pages on what happened on Jan. 6 and what Donald Trump did before and during Jan. 6, there's no dispute. We saw it on television, and we saw -- we know what happened. He engaged in an insurrection. He wanted this to happen, and not only that, he gave -- there's another provision that talks about giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. He did that, he was an enemy of the Constitution. If this decision gets overturned, it's not going to be on the basis of the factual findings."

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubeyoutu.be