We use cookies on this website. By continuing to use this site without changing your cookie settings, you agree that you are happy to accept our privacy policy and for us to access our cookies on your device.
[[The United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments Thursday to determine whether former president and likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is ineligible for the office and must be excluded from states' ballots because of his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. White House Bureau Chief Patsy Widakuswara brings this preview.]]
Content TypePackage
LanguageEnglish
Transcript/ScriptUS SUPREME COURT – TRUMP PREVIEW TV/ Radio
HEADLINE: US High Court to Hear Arguments on Trump's Eligibility to Regain Presidency
TEASER: Can the former president and likely Republican presidential nominee be excluded from states’ ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol?
PUBLISHED: 02/07/2024 at 10:21 pm
BYLINE: Patsy Widakuswara
DATELINE: Washington
WRITERS:
CONTRIBUTER:
VIDEOGRAPHER:
PRODUCER:
SCRIPT EDITORS: Mia Bush, David Jones
VIDEO SOURCE (S): AFP, AP, Zoom
PLATFORMS (mark with X): WEB __ TV _x_ RADIO __
TRT: 3:09
VID APPROVED BY: mia
TYPE: TVR
EDITOR NOTES: Radio track included. There is a web.))
((INTRO:))
[[The United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments Thursday to determine whether former president and likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is ineligible for the office and must be excluded from states' ballots because of his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. White House Bureau Chief Patsy Widakuswara brings this preview.]]
((NARRATOR))
On January 6, 2021, a mob of Donald Trump supporters who believed his rhetoric that the November 2020 election was stolen, stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
((NARRATOR))
Trump’s role in the siege, and whether it should make him ineligible to run for re-election, is at the heart of the case
brought before the Supreme Court Thursday
on whether the likely Republican nominee must be excluded from ballots in the state of Colorado because he engaged in an insurrection on January 6.
((Mark Graber, Francis King Carey School of Law)) ((Zoom))
“Donald Trump incited that insurrection.”
((NARRATOR))
Mark Graber, a leading expert in constitutional law on insurrections,
is one of the many scholars who filed an amicus brief against Trump.
((Mark Graber, Francis King Carey School of Law)) ((Zoom))
“He was told there were people in the crowd with weapons who intended to invade Congress. He responded by saying, ‘When there's fraud, you don't use the usual means. You fight – you fight like hell.’ A reasonable person could say given Trump's behavior, he intended to inspire an insurrection and participate.”
((NARRATOR))
The case is based on the 14th Amendment, written in 1866 after the end of the Civil War to keep former Confederates — officials from the 11 Southern states that seceded from the United States to protect the institution of slavery — from returning to power.
((GFX))
((NARRATOR))
Section 3 disqualifies from holding office, a person who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection."
((NARRATOR))
Trump say the case is part of Biden’s “witch hunt” against a political opponent – a claim the administration denies.
((NARRATOR))
His lawyers argue that January 6 was not an insurrection, that Trump was only exercising his free speech rights. They say Section 3 does not apply to presidents and cannot be used to disqualify Trump. So does Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who defended Trump in the past.
((Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School))
“In the absence of congressional action, I don't believe the 14th Amendment is self-enforcing. Otherwise, why would you need article 5 of the 14th Amendment that explicitly gives Congress the power to make these decisions?”
((NARRATOR))
Six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including three by Trump. But despite their ideologies, these justices will contend with the same historical facts,
((NARRATOR))
presented in another amicus brief by 25 leading historians, including Allan J. Lichtman, professor of history at American University in Washington.
((Allan J. Lichtman, American University))
“It's going to be very difficult for them to contradict the historical evidence we presented in our brief, that Trump is covered (by Section 3) that it doesn't require another act of Congress or a conviction. And the section wasn't just meant for ex-confederates.”
((NARRATOR))
However, given the political magnitude of the ruling’s impact, the Supreme Court may decline to make a final decision and leave it to Congress.
In the coming months, the court will also likely deliberate on Trump’s claim of immunity in a separate federal election interference case prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith,
((NARRATOR))
that was rejected by a federal appeals court Tuesday.
((Patsy Widakuswara, VOA News.))
NewsML Media TopicsArts, Culture, Entertainment and Media
Rights“Rights are not granted for this content on YouTube. Posting of this content on YouTube is strictly prohibited.”
NetworkVOA
Embargo DateFebruary 7, 2024 22:52 EST
Byline
((Patsy Widakuswara, VOA News.))
Brand / Language ServiceVoice of America - English
