Post from Truth Social

saying that the American people should have the right to choose the next president of the United States, not judges in Colorado. Here with reaction, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. You know, professor, I look at section three, the 14th amendment. By the way, the president, uh, is not even mentioned in the statutory language, but put that aside for a minute. But the whole allegation that Trump engaged in insurrection, correct me, professor, if I'm wrong, um, did Donald Trump ever get charged with insurrection? Has he been convicted of insurrection or is this just a word that the January six committee put on in their predetermined outcome hearing that they had? Well, I'm not even that much that he's been charged by the secretary of state of Maine with insurrection and by individual judges and a court in, in Colorado, there's been no conviction or charge. Smith could have easily persuaded a grand jury to indict him for insurrection and rebellion or any of the other provisions of the 14th amendment. The problem is article five of the 14th amendment says that Congress has the power to define what insurrection means, what rebellion means, what the procedures are plainly the framers of the 14th amendment who were Lincolnian kind of very, very, uh, in favor of reconstruction would never have allowed the states of Mississippi or Virginia to decide who's going to be the on the ballot for president of the United States. This was intended to be congressional action. Congress took no action to implement the 14th amendment. It's not self enforcing. And I believe the Supreme court will rule, I hope nine to nothing, uh, that this, uh, 14th amendment argument is just made up at a full cloth. Look, what we're involved in is a game of beat the clock. Remember that we will kids beat the clock. Everybody's trying to get down and dirty convictions against Trump or rulings against Trump before the election to influence the election. And if they come to higher courts, they will almost certainly be reversed. Well, we'll see, uh, there's a lot of issues out there. Greg, let's get your take on it and you know, there's got to be due process as part of this. If you, you at least would have to be charged convicted, I would think before you can say with any certainty, guilty of insurrection. That's right. The 14th amendment does not disqualify Donald Trump because section three doesn't cover candidates for president. That office is deliberately omitted, specifying instead senators, representatives and electors only. In fact, if you look at the earlier versions of the amendment, it proposed the president, but then later dropped it, excluding the president because the authors were concerned about Confederate leaders being elected to Congress, not the presidency or over the professor's right. Section three is not self executing. It's dependent on congressional action, just read section five. And finally, you know, I doubt the Supreme court will even address the issue of insurrection except to note that Trump is not, as you point out, been charged or convicted of that offense. Partisan officials cannot simply declare him guilty of insurrection without due process. That violates the 14th amendment. So this is political gamesmanship. The Supreme court will see it for what it is. And I think it will be unanimous. Let me ask you both about the immunity decision real quick. About 20 seconds each. I thought there were better arguments on the issue of presidential immunity than the one that was given about the Navy seal and ordering, you know, a hit on a political opponent, professor. sides argued too broadly, the Trump side argued for all total and complete immunity and the other side for virtually no immunity. If the Supreme court takes this case, it will split the difference and it will rule that some actions done by the president within the scope of his authority to be broadly defined are covered by immunity and others like ordering that deals to it. Is that what the argue quickly, Greg, I think there were better arguments available. Clearly they'll bring that to the Supreme court. It's true. And the DC court opinion is deeply flawed, claiming that Trump has become citizen Trump. So he has no immunity. That misunderstands the argument at issue are his actions as president, not later as private citizen. And a president needs immunity because otherwise every president, you know, will be making a decision through the prism of, oh, if I do this, uh, what's going to happen after I leave the White House? All right. Thank you both. When we come back, it'll be lawyers who were making the decisions, not presidents.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.