Oops! Legal Experts Say Trump's Lawyers Totally Botched Supreme Court Filing

Donald Trump's legal team has officially asked the US Supreme Court to rule on the Colorado decision to ban him from the state's ballot, and legal experts are shocked and appalled at how horrible the legal filing is. One expert even pointed out that the filing is written so poorly that it actually gives the Court a new avenue to bar Trump from serving in office again. Trump's legal team is going to be his undoing this year, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Donald Trump's lawyers filed a legal brief this week with the United States Supreme Court asking them, of course, to take up the issue of whether or not states have the authority to kick him off the ballot for engaging in an insurrection. And according to legal experts, pretty much across the board, the filing was part word, salad, and part so bad that it might give the Supreme Court no choice but to rule against him. Here is what legal expert, former US attorney Barbara McQuaid said on M-S-N-B-C after the filing was made. Uh, she said, I do agree with one of the things he wrote in this brief, uh, which is this is a matter of significant importance that must be decided urgently. She then continues, the lead argument that he makes here is one I haven't heard before. You know, he, he's got all the greatest hits in there. The 14th amendment doesn't apply to the US president. This wasn't an insurrection. Even if it was, he didn't engage in it. All the things we might expect. One he led with that is interesting to me is that the 14th amendment only bars someone from holding office, not running for office.

So Donald Trump's lawyers in their filing to the Supreme Court tell 'em like, Hey, he's allowed to be on the ballot because the 14th Amendment only says he can't hold an office. Not that he can't run for an office. So, you know, we're going literal letter of the law here, and he's allowed to be on the ballot. And then what if he wins? He's still barred from holding office. That's what McQuaid brings up when she says, uh, he should be permitted to run, be elected, and only on January 20th, 2025 should it be said. Sorry folks, he can't serve. That's kind of the argument. She points out that his lawyers are making, like he's allowed to run. He can be on the ballot, he just can't serve if he wins.

Interesting take there. Other legal experts also pointed out how stupid the filing is. You had, uh, us uh, former US attorney Joyce Vance, who said, no shame, no decency, um, talking about Trump's efforts to disenfranchise voters. Then you had Andrew Weissman, who of course, uh, former prosecutor who had served on Mueller's team, who said the sort of gull that the brief represents. It's really, I think, shocking. It's really sort of beyond the pale and legally wrong. So I like that he's like, this is just, it's, it's kind of shocking that they're so just arrogant with it, especially when they're just wrong on the legal facts. Then George Conway says, uh, this is a bizarre document, and I think it reflects the weakness of Trump's position. He's throwing stuff up at the wall or throwing stuff up at a zoo cage and seeing what would stick. So that's kind of the consensus among these legal experts. But I do think it is interesting that his lawyers included that

Part in there that McQuaid pointed out that's like, Hey, he can be on a ballot. He might not be able to serve. So the Supreme Court has a lot of decisions to make here. And of course, this, uh, the Supreme Court is not a fact finder. That's what the lower courts do. The Supreme Court's job is to essentially determine whether or not the law was correctly applied in certain instances. So that is what they're gonna be doing. So all of these arguments that Trump's lawyers have made, and this was actually, uh, pointed out by CNN legal expert, uh, Eli Honig, uh, he's like, listen, the Supreme Court is not even gonna touch those things.