Reacting to a filing Donald Trump's lawyers made to the Supreme Court this week to keep him on the ballot on Colorado after an adverse ruling, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade laughed at their wording that seems to open the door to their client being able to run for office but not serve if he wins.
Appearing on MSNBC, the legal analyst discussed the appeal that revolves around the use in Colorado of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from running for office due to his part in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Speaking with host Mika Brzezinski, McQuade seemed alternately amused and baffled by one Trump team assertion.
"What are your thoughts on whether the Supreme Court actually takes it, the timing of it, and also how the Trump team created their petition, what they led with versus what Donald Trump is accused of, therefore making him ineligible to be on the ballot?" the MSNBC host asked.
ALSO READ: Republican congressman violates federal law with botched cryptocurrency disclosures
"Yes, I think the court will have to take up the case. Whether it decides it on the merits, I think, is another question," the legal analyst replied. "I do agree with one of the things he wrote in his brief, which is, this is a matter of significant importance that must be decided urgently. I think that as we see all of these other primaries starting to play out across the country, starting this month, I think it is very important that this issue be resolved."
Having said that, she added, "The lead argument that he makes here is one I haven't heard before. You know, he's got all the greatest hits in there: the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the U.S. president, this wasn't an insurrection. Even if it was, he didn't engage in it, all the things we might expect."
"One he led with that is interesting to me is that the 14th Amendment only bars someone from holding office, not running for office," she continued. "Therefore, he should be permitted to run, be elected, and only on January 20th of 2025, should it be said, 'Sorry, folks, he can't serve.'"
Laughing she added, "You know, that sounds like a textualist argument, and maybe the court bites on it, but imagine the absurdity? He can't serve, so his vice president is the president of the United States. Maybe that's how we'll see the court play out."
"I do think the court is likely to take an off-ramp. A more likely off-ramp, I think, is one that says this is not a justiciable argument, that is, this is a matter for Congress, not the courts to decide. So that might be one that they bite on," she concluded.
MSNBC 01 04 2024 07 09 08www.youtube.com
