There is no serious reading of 14A-3 that concludes it does not cover Presidents.Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:09 am (Hard to believe this was the next to last thread on the first page.)
@judgeluttig
The brilliant Roger Parloff of
@Lawfare
may well have blown Trump v. Anderson wide open.
What Justice Scalia Thought About Whether Presidents Are “Officers of the United States”
In a 2014 concurrence and a short letter elaborating on it, Scalia indicated that the president was an “officer of the United States.” [...]
There is no serious reading of 14A-3 that concludes it would not cover the events of and surrounding 1/6.
In my opinion, there is a good-faith argument that can be made that there has not yet been a judicial proceeding conclusively (for 14A-3 purposes) establishing that Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the Constitution of the United States]."
I would disagree with this argument - in my opinion, the Colorado trial court's finding (undisturbed through Colorado Supreme Court review) is more than sufficient, in this eligibility (NOT punishment) context.
But I think this is the ONLY plausible legal off-ramp for the Court (and it's an off-ramp I expect they'll take, or something extra-legal, like some mealy-mouthed nod in the direction of judicial discretion).