In a recent appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany strongly criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s contentious decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary election in 2024. The court, in a narrow 4-3 ruling, invoked the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which bars individuals who participated in an insurrection from seeking federal office.
During the interview, McEnany voiced her apprehensions regarding what she perceives as the left’s attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. She questioned the application of Section 3 to a former president and expressed concerns about the lack of due process in Trump’s case, specifically pointing out the inability to subpoena documents and witnesses.
Former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg, joining the conversation on January 9, 2024, on “The Ingraham Angle,” added weight to the discussion. He predicted a swift reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring the importance of unanimity in the decision. Wisenberg questioned the legitimacy of using Section 3, arguing that its enforcement requires congressional action and due process.
Wisenberg acknowledged the disputed applicability of Section 3 to a former president, suggesting that Congress needs to specify enforcement. He emphasized the absence of a fair trial and due process in Trump’s case, aligning with McEnany’s concerns. Both guests expressed worry over the potential misuse of legal processes for political motives, characterizing it as a manifestation of “Trump derangement syndrome” within the judiciary.
Delving into legal nuances, Wisenberg provided historical context, emphasizing the non-self-executing nature of Section 3. McEnany raised questions about the intentional omission of the president in the section’s text, further fueling the debate on its applicability to a former president.
The conversation underscored the need for Congress to legislate enforcement and stressed the significance of due process in disqualifying a candidate from the ballot. McEnany and Wisenberg’s exchange explored the controversial Colorado Supreme Court decision, shedding light on concerns about potential political motivations and the perceived lack of due process.
In framing the issue within the broader context of constitutional interpretation, historical considerations, and its implications for American democracy, the discussion positioned the decision as part of a larger trend of perceived bias against Trump within the legal system.
