Seth Meyers reacts to the “convenient loophole” that Donald Trump’s lawyer was arguing in courtroom for his shopper to remain within the presidential race – the same lawyer who also admitted in the same hearing that the insurrection was “criminal”.
During a Supreme Court oral arguments hearing on Thursday over whether Mr Trump needs to be allowed to remain on 2024 ballot papers based mostly on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause, his lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, dismissed that January 6 was an rebel however did admit that it was a “riot” and known as it “criminal.”
“We didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government,” Mr Mitchell mentioned through the hearing.
“This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things. But it did not qualify as insurrection.”
“Something tells me Trump isn’t exactly going to be thrilled with that argument,” Mr Meyers reacted. “It doesn’t really fit on a baseball cap: shameful, criminal, violent, but still eligible!”
The argument for Mr Trump to be faraway from the election race is predicated on the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause, which was put in place after the Civil War to cease former Confederates from getting into the federal government.
The clause bars anybody who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution to carry any US workplace in the event that they “engaged insurrection or rebellion against the same”.
Mr Mitchell wrote to the courtroom that Mr Trump “did not lead, direct, or encourage any of the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol”. Despite that, he additionally added that the rebel clause wouldn’t apply to him anyway as he was not “an officer of the US states” as written within the clause of the 14th Amendment.
He claimed that the “presidency is excluded from office under the United States”.
“Bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn’t it? Designed to benefit only your client?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor requested.
“I certainly wouldn’t call it gerrymandered,” Mr Mitchell replied.
“It is funny to imagine that the drafters of the 14th Amendment somehow specifically exempted Donald Trump, of all people,” Mr Meyers mentioned in response to Mr Mitchell’s arguments.
He then jokingly pretended that the Amendment had a selected clause that very oddly described somebody who sounded very very like Mr Trump.
“That would clarify why they added a clause saying: ‘Any person who engages in insurrection shall be barred from office unless said person is a boisterous and irksome real estate financier with peculiar physical features and a bizarre obsession with winged creatures slain by a wind-producing apparatus who once hosted a reality competition programme on television or whatever that is.”
The Late Show mocked the lawyer for also admitting his own argument over whether the former president should be immune from the 14th Amendment was a little odd.
After being questioned by Justice Elena Kagan about the very convenient rule Mr Mitchell is arguing, the lawyer said: “It does seem odd that President Trump would fall through the cracks in a sense.”
“It’s not nice that as a lawyer, you simply admit in courtroom your argument is bizarre,” the present host mentioned.
Donald Trump himself additionally made some ironic statements in an interview on the John Fredericks Show in regards to the case, saying that eradicating him from the race could be a “very terrible thing to do. It’s about the vote. It’s about our Constitution… you can’t take the votes away from the people… that would be so bad for democracy.”
“That’s what you did. That’s why this case is happening in the first place!” Mr Meyers mentioned with a raised voice.
“Without any sense of irony or self-awareness, he claimed it would be an attack on democracy to remove him from the ballot – for attacking democracy,” the present host said.
Judges in Colorado and Maine’s secretary of state have already decided that January 6 did quantity to an rebel, with Mr Trump, president on the time, on the centre of it, however it is up to the Supreme Court how they choose to tackle this debate throughout all states within the US.