Ex-Trump impeachment lawyer David Schoen told CNN’s Poppy Harlow he’s “shocked” by one argument former President Donald Trump’s team has raised in the Supreme Court case on whether he can be banned from the ballot for engaging in insurrection.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday morning in a case that will determine whether states can ban Trump from the ballot on the grounds that he violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection on January 6.
On Thursday morning’s edition of CNN This Morning, Harlow interviewed Schoen, who held almost uniformly pro-Trump views in the case and predicted a 9-0 victory for Trump.
But there was one argument from Trump’s team that stunned Schoen — that the 14th Amendment could bar Trump from holding office, not from running:
POPPY HARLOW: What I find to be the most interesting, but potentially the most perilous argument that Trump’s team of lawyers is making in this is that the language only bars someone guilty of this from holding office, not from running for office. But if Trump were to win, I mean, do you think that’s a wise road for them to go down today?DAVID SCHOEN: That may be the best question of all. I’m shocked that they raise it!A good lawyer recognizes that not every textual or other argument that’s available ought to be made.In this case,
there’s an amicus brief that makes it also, and that may be appropriate for an amicus to make. It’s an interesting argument that is a finding from the textual language.But why on earth, President Trump, President Trump’s team want to argue that? So that he wins the election. And then afterwards they re-initiate this whole process of trying to bar him from holding office.And they say, well, your lawyer said that that’s what the language provides. I don’t believe for a second that President Trump approved that argument to be made.POPPY HARLOW: Tell me how you would argue this case, David.DAVID SCHOEN: On the process issue. Frankly, I think that that’s an issue that all sides ought to coalesce around.Nobody in this country wants someone to, the voters, either to lose their first and 14th amendment rights, to vote for a candidate of their choice, or a candidate to stand for election based on a finding by a random state.We know from the 1983 case, Anderson v. Celebrezze Landmark ballot access case that states have a lesser interest in national elections because their action affects what goes on in the whole country.So I would argue it on the process question a matter of due process. You don’t have to look beyond the 14th amendment to know that this is a denial of rights by circumventing the safeguards thatwould be if he were charged under 2383. He wasn’t. I think the case ought to be overturned. Nine zero.POPPY HARLOW: Come back tomorrow if you can. David. I’d love to hear what you think after we hear the arguments today. So appreciate your time.
Watch above via CNN This Morning.