Here's how Trump expects to beat ballot cases: CNN legal expert

Here's how Trump expects to beat ballot cases: CNN legal expert
Eli Honig and Donald Trump (CNN screenshot)

Former President Donald Trump already knows he's not going to get the Supreme Court to absolve him of the factual finding he participated in an insurrection, said former federal prosecutor Elie Honig on CNN Wednesday — but he has ways to get his name back on ballots in Colorado and Maine.

"If we're talking about the Fourteenth Amendment, what Donald Trump does in his brief that he submitted yesterday challenging the disqualification is he gives himself a lot of different ways to win," said Honig.

Honig then went on to break down the former president's argument.

"He focuses on the procedural side — that's where this is going to be decided," Honig said Wednesday.

"He says it's up to Congress, not the states, to tell us how the Fourteenth Amendment works. Congress has not done that, other than passing the criminal law.

"But then he says, even if it is up to the states, Maine did not follow its own procedures."

Additionally, Trump rehashes the lower trial court's decision that the presidency is not an "officer" and is, therefore, not subject to the 14th Amendments ruling that insurrectionists can't hold public office.

All told, Honig said, "What Trump is doing is giving himself four or five different ways to win. Lawyers like to do that ... any competitive endeavor, you up your chances."

"Do they see — as you read it, can you pinpoint what they think the most effective?" said anchor Phil Mattingly.

"I think they understand the appeals courts are not going to say, we find you did not engage in insurrection," said Honig. "He understands that is up to the fact-finder. I think he is looking for an argument that's going to take this out of the state's hands altogether, which is one of two arguments.

ALSO READ: Why 'it’s the economy, stupid' no longer applies

"One is, it's up to Congress. In their absence to act, the U.S. Supreme Court finds that all these claims go away. The second one is that the president does not count as an officer argument. I'm not compelled by that myself if I were the judge, but it has gotten some traction. It's a way for the Supreme Court to dispose of all of these cases in one shot."

As for whether the court does get involved, Honig continued, "I think they are going to have to get involved in the Colorado matter ... they can rule on this if they take the Colorado case one of two ways. They can rule in a narrow way that will invite 50 of these challenges, if they say it's up to the states and we find Colorado did or did not follow its own processes."

"Colorado will stand or fall. You'll have 49 other challenges. I think they are going to be looking for a way to make one ruling and say, that's the end of this nationwide, is that's my guess."

But, he added, "I have to say, we're all guessing here. Uncharted territory."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

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

Political experts raised concerns about President Donald Trump's health and stamina after observing him travel from Sunday's UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House directly to France for the G7 Summit to discuss Iran deal negotiations.

At age 80, Trump's appearance at Évian-les-Bains with French President Emmanuel Macron prompted critical commentary from observers.

"The WH is trying to project Trump as the president who never stops working, going right from the UFC thing to Paris and nailing down the Iran agreement when others were sleeping. In reality, he looks and sounds totally spent. How much longer can they keep the plates spinning?" Conspiracy expert and author Mike Rothschild wrote on X.

"Trump does not look like a man that’s in full control of his faculties," entrepreneur and technologist Gissur Simonarson, co-founder of Cloud Sherpa, wrote on X.

Journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on X, "Trump looks like death warmed over."

Watch the video below.


THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Rachel Maddow kicked off her MS NOW segment on Monday with a deep dive into one of the most bizarre and sketchy side sagas of the Trump administration's second term: his refusal to allow the Gordie Howe Bridge between Canada and the United States to open.

"The big, beautiful new bridge that Trump is not allowing us to use is that bridge that crosses the Detroit River ... to Windsor, Ontario, Canada," said Maddow, showing pictures of the completed but empty bridge and noting it is "fully financed and paid for" and will be "the biggest U.S. border crossing [with] Canada" and "one of the most important routes for trade in the entire world."

Unfortunately, she said, "This is why we can't have nice things." Trump has refused to let the bridge open, and is arguing Canada must allow the U.S. to claim joint ownership of the structure.

For their part, Maddow continued, "the White House insists that categorically, just because [Trump is] president, he can't have a conflict of interest. It's like dividing by zero. Doesn't make sense!"

Nonetheless, she added, there is something in all of this that does look like a glaring conflict of interest.

"There is a competing bridge a little way down the river. A privately owned, very old, very congested toll bridge that will likely lose some of its traffic because of competition," said Maddow, referring to the Ambassador Bridge owned by the ultra-wealthy Maroun family and their trucking empire. And that family "earlier this year made a $1 million donation to Donald Trump's super PAC," said Maddow, after which they got a meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Despite the White House and the super PAC both claiming this chain of events was a coincidence, Maddow said, "that night, Trump suddenly discovers new, supposedly trade-related reasons why he is now against this bridge, even though previously he had been for it."

"That all happened in February. Now it's June," said Maddow — and the bridge is still closed.

- YouTube youtu.be

A foreign policy expert argued on Monday that President Donald Trump's "sham" deal with the Iranian regime reveals the president is really looking to "turn the page" on a war he started without resolving all of the hard problems he's left behind.

Over the weekend, Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that the U.S. and Iran had reached an "agreement" that could end their 106-day conflict. The agreement stipulated that the two sides would sign it on Friday, and that tougher discussion about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the Strait of Hormuz would be put off for another day.

David Rothkopf, a columnist for The Daily Beast and the former editor at large of Foreign Policy Magazine, said during a new podcast episode that the deal Trump and the Pakistani's announced isn't a deal at all. Instead, he described it as a "sham."

“So, it’s not a deal; it’s not even a framework of a deal,” Rothkopf said. “It’s a sham. If you launch a war against somebody and the other side comes out better than you do, and then you have to sue for peace and pay them money to get you back to the status quo, in military or in diplomatic terms, you know what we call that?”

Reports indicate that the U.S. has approved a $300 billion reconstruction package for Iran to access at some point in the future. Some reports indicate that the money could be sent by the Qatari government, while Vice President JD Vance told Sean Hannity of Fox News that it would likely come from investments in the region.

Rothkopf argued that no matter who pays the money, one thing is clear: Trump lost the war with Iran.

“We call that a loss. We call that surrender,” he said. “And what Trump is doing is he is surrendering to a weaker ally because a war we shouldn’t have started was blundered through, contained many mistakes, and he just wants to turn the page.”

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}