Mark Levin tweeted a few moments ago an article from ABC News that he says is “the most partisan piece of sh*t” news article regarding the left’s attempt to disqualify Trump.
“This is the most partisan piece of sh*t “news” piece by ABC News, pushing the most outrageous abomination dressed up as a constitutional issue, yet. I have been warning about this scam for over a year, that they would try it and organize a movement behind it, and that is exactly what is taking place. And the corrupt media are all in. Notice, despite the fact I have discussed this on Fox, on my radio show, and on the Internet, not one word from ABC News about my challenge to this entire ruse.”
This is the most partisan piece of sh*t "news" piece by ABC News, pushing the most outrageous abomination dressed up as a constitutional issue, yet. I have been warning about this scam for over a year, that they would try it and organize a movement behind it, and that is exactly…
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) August 26, 2023
The article is on trying to use the 14th amendment to claim Trump is disqualified because of his efforts to ‘overturn’ the 2020 election:
Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.
That disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States, or had “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.
“If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency,” the article reads.
Since then, two more legal scholars — retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe — made the same case in an article published in The Atlantic.
“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation,” they wrote. “The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”
The argument even got raised on the Republican presidential debate stage in Milwaukee this week.
“Over a year ago, I said that Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again as a result of what happened on January 6th. More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said, eliciting a mix of cheers and boos from the audience. “I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”
Notice they claim this is a ‘conservative’ argument, but do they say anywhere that these people are likely ‘Never-Trumpers’. (I say likely because, other than Hutchinson and Tribe, I’m not familiar these people.) No, what this is a leftist argument that the Never-Trumpers would love to see happen.
The entire argument is ludicrous. There was no insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It was just a riot. Plain and simple. Just because Asa Hutchinson used the word ‘insurrection’ during the debate doesn’t make it so. It only makes him look like a moron RINO, which is why he’ll never win the nomination. I honestly don’t even know why he’s running.