So how would that work? Clearly, an attempted insurrection happened. Clearly, that invalidates anyone involved from running for office per the Constitution.

Replying separately, I think SCOTUS disagrees very much with the above. Oh, not that they concluded that January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Just that these things aren't clear, rather than findings that would be contingent on the interpretations and factual records assembled by any particular state trial court. And that the meaning of the phrase "aid or comfort to the enemies of the U.S." would be similarly subject to the contingencies of an evidentiary record and state court interpretations.

IOW, they were clearly not interested in the idea of disturbing the trial court's findings that an insurrection happened and that Trump's involvement constituted "engagement" with it - but I think it's also very clear that they felt that different courts could reach different conclusions based on different evidence and arguments.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.