Jeff Clark: Trump not guilty of insurrection because 'he left office on time'

Jeff Clark: Trump not guilty of insurrection because 'he left office on time'
Real America's Voice/screen grab

Former United States Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark argued that Donald Trump could not be guilty of an insurrection because his efforts to stay in office ultimately failed.

During a Thursday interview with right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon, Clark disagreed with a Colorado Supreme Court decision that bars Trump from the state's primary ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Clark said the 14th Amendment did not apply to Trump because the president and vice president were not explicitly named in the text.

"MSNBC, CNN, they try to portray it as some kind of technicality," he scoffed. "And the trial judge was willing to obey it, but not four out of the seven justices of the Colorado Supreme Court."

ALSO READ: Florida judge’s son is a neo-Nazi patron: data leak

"Their next argument is that, you know, they conclude President Trump committed an insurrection," he continued, noting "dozens and dozens" of pages backing up the court's ruling.

But Clark, who was one of 18 co-defendants charged alongside Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case, insisted that Trump did not meet the qualifications for an insurrectionist.

"But whether someone engaged in an insurrection requires scienter, which is the fancy legal term for the intent, you need to have the intent to try to overthrow the government," Clark opined. "And it's ridiculous to say that President Trump had that intent, because he specifically said — first of all, he left office on time, right?"

"But second, he told people to march peacefully and patriotically down to the Capitol, let their voices be heard," he added. "And so it's ludicrous to imagine that he could ever be found guilty of insurrection, which is why Jack Smith didn't charge him with it."

Watch the video below from Real America's Voice.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Why, oh why does everyone jump through hoops when Donald Trump announces yet another deal with Iran? It’s become such a joke that when “breaking news” notifications pop up on my phone these days, I always say to myself, “Trump’s touting another Iran deal.”

Only a fool would believe Trump when he says a deal is “complete.” Because once again, the man who wrote The Art of the Deal, or more accurately, paid Tony Schwartz to write it, says a deal is done. It is set to be signed this Friday in Geneva, and the entire world is responding the way it always does: by believing something Trump says and breathing yet another sigh of relief.

This war has been a shambolic, haphazard pigsty of epic proportions. Come to think of it, didn’t J.D. Vance go to Pakistan to sign a deal? Or was it Marco Rubio? Or was it Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff? Or did they all go together? Or did they go to Qatar?

See what I mean?

Yes, I know there was a preliminary deal signed on Monday, but...

Here’s what we supposedly have. The U.S. and Iran say they’ve reached an agreement to end more than 100 days of war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, lift the U.S. blockade — and God knows what it'll do about Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump stated over the weekend and on Monday that Iran no longer wants to pursue nuclear weapons. That comment defies explanation and forces you to let go of any sense of reality.

The formal signing is scheduled for Friday in Switzerland, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar. I guess you have to invite them at this point. Maybe everyone thinks the third time is a charm? Or is this the fourth attempt to sign a deal?

Trump is telling reporters the actual text of the memorandum “may not be released until after Friday.” Which means nobody knows what the hell they are going to sign on Friday because, just like the war, this so-called memorandum is a shambolic, haphazard pigsty.

But details are leaking. There are reports that Iran will receive a whopping $300 billion for reconstruction. Only an idiotic fool would hand this intensely crooked regime that absurd amount of money,

And Trump says the Strait of Hormuz will be open. But it appears there’s a significant diplomatic dispute over Iran's plan to charge commercial vessels, because the strait’s territorial waters belong exclusively to Iran and Oman,

Tehran asserts it has the legal right to co-manage the waterway and levy charges

Who can trust either side? And more pointedly, who can trust Iran to begin with, let alone trust them to sign something 72 hours away? Then there’s Netanyahu, who you’d think might have an opinion on a deal involving his own backyard. Yet his office released a statement clarifying that Israel isn’t even a party to it.

Iran says one thing. Trump boasts about another. Iran says what Trump says isn’t true. Israel and Lebanon exchange fire. Iran makes an irrational, late stage demand. American officials say that’s not how any of this works.

And on and on.

If this all feels familiar, it’s because we’ve watched this before. Donald Trump has always, from his earliest days, failed to shepherd lasting deals to successful completion.

Back in 1983, a younger Donald Trump bought himself a football team, the New Jersey Generals, and by 1986, it all went bankrupt.

He decided the USFL’s best move was to challenge the NFL head-on in court with an antitrust lawsuit Trump was sure would force a merger or a massive payout.

He testified. He guaranteed victory. He bloviated. And the USFL did, technically, win. A jury found the NFL had acted as a monopoly. The prize? One dollar, tripled to three under antitrust law.

The league folded within days, and Trump walked away from the wreckage of a deal he’d personally engineered with nothing to show for it but failure.

And 40 years later, we have the same mess, but with much bigger stakes, and still the same failure of a man trying to win. He will lose. He always does.

That’s the Trump pattern. Announce it loudly, skimp on the details, let everyone else clean up later. A “very strong memorandum of understanding,” that Trump himself admits is “a little conceptual,” is not a peace deal.

This reminded me of the September 2024 presidential debate, when pressed on his decade-long promise to replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump famously blurted out, “I have concepts of a plan.” Doesn’t that sound familiar to “a little conceptual?”

One wonders what happened to those “concepts?”

Finally, there’s one aspect of this fragile deal that could kaput the whole thing: Trump’s Truth Social ramblings, attacks, and verbosity.

His short fuse and fat, fast fingers could blow the whole thing apart. If Iran makes a noncommittal statement, or if someone says Trump is TACO’ing again, or doing what Obama did with this shoddy Iran deal, Trump won’t be able to control himself. He will flail.

And Iran will say, OK, if that’s how you feel, we ain’t signing. The bottom line is that Iran has Trump over a barrel because he wants to put the war “in the rear view mirror.”

But that looks more and more impossible as Friday looms. Late on Tuesday, the Trump mouthpiece New York Post editorial board posted a column titled, “Trump’s Iran deal gives the Islamic Republic big wins upfront — and America nothing."

Now, if by some miracle this “nothing” deal gets signed Friday without incident, the real test starts the next day, with 60 days of negotiations over the issues that actually matter. Run by Trump’s gut, they will surely fall apart, just like his New Jersey Generals exactly 40 years ago.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

A GOP senator is being torched online after he tried to reassure people that the Trump administration knows what it's doing.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) was asked during an appearance on Fox Business how he feels about Trump's embattled deal to end the Iran war.

"I trust President Trump. I trust Vice President Vance," Tuberville said. "We don't need to listen to anybody up here on Capitol Hill. Let's trust these two."

The online reactions to him turning on his Capitol Hill colleagues in favor of the White House were fierce, however.

"America's worst senator, showing exactly why he's unfit for the office he holds," wrote Gregg Nunziata, a prominent right-wing lawyer and former Senate GOP counsel.

"Dumbest man in the Senate offers glowing endorsement," summed up John Podhoretz, the editor of the conservative Commentary Magazine.

"Congress is the only branch of government where members regularly say their job is to do nothing, just sit around like a potted plant," snarked Jeet Heer, a writer for The Nation.

"Idiot," wrote national opinion columnist Sophia A. Nelson. "Go back to Alabama."

"Why even have a Senate, Tuberhead?" asked Rex Bossert, the former editor in chief of the National Law Journal.

A MAGA senator was walloped online after he parroted a head-spinning Trump defense of his dubious Iran deal.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) was asked by CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday about Trump's deal to end the war with Iran.

"Are you okay with Iran having missiles?" Collins asked.

Marshall responded, "I prefer that they not, but they have to defend themselves," echoing Trump, who hours earlier defended letting Iran keep its ballistic missiles because "other people have some."

Commentators online let Marshall have it for rehashing a line that doesn't make much sense and for shamelessly flipping his positions to be in lockstep with Trump.

"This guy will say whatever Trump says on any given day," Ron Filipkowski, the editor-in-chief of the MeidasTouch news network, said. "He has no core beliefs. His political philosophy is whatever position Trump takes today, which may be different from the position Trump had yesterday."

"Trump/flunkie Republican senator says Iran has to be able to defend itself," summarized journalist John Harwood.

"Couldn't we have just come to this conclusion before 13 Americans and thousands of Iranians died for nothing?" asked American Saga writer Zaid Jilani.

"So America's adversaries need to be able to defend themselves against America for America's sake?" wondered Max Meizlish, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "Got it. Nothing to see here. Nothing weird going on at all."

Spanish-language journalist León Krauze described the comments as "surreal." Meanwhile, Pradheep J. Shanker, a doctor and contributor for the National Review, simply wrote, "JFC" to express his frustration.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}