U.S. Attorney General Henry Stanbery’s legal opinions defined engaging in insurrection as any “direct, overt act done with intent to further the rebellion that was voluntary.” He stressed that disqualification could result from speech or writing that incited others.
Furthermore, Magliocca cited instances in 1867 where Congress refused to seat new members because of their involvement in the Confederacy, providing insights into what lawmakers and state delegates considered disqualifying behavior.
Trump’s Defense and First Amendment Argument
Former President Trump and his legal team have argued that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the president. They have also contended that Trump did not “engage” in insurrection and that his speeches and social media posts are protected by the First Amendment.
In a surprising move during Wednesday’s proceedings, Trump’s counsel moved for a directed verdict, asserting that the voters must demonstrate Trump’s words were intended and likely to incite violence. They challenged the argument that Trump’s speeches and tweets had a “tendency” to lead to violence, emphasizing that the case primarily hinges on his speech.
