As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.
You don’t think Trump’s legal team will make every argument they can? Certainly they’ll try the “president isn’t an officer and therefore 14th can’t apply” angle. They’ll also claim that even if it can apply, it shouldn’t here because he didn’t insurrect.
I think trump will make every brainless argument they can think of, but that doesn’t make it a cogent argument. But neither of those arguments hold water, 1) given that both the constitution lists the president as an office, and the creators of the amendment said as much during arguments and 2) he’s already been found to have committed insurrection in multiple venues.
Just because stupid people make stupid arguments, doesn’t mean they hold any weight or legal value. And respectfully, I don’t know that your opinion on this matter is worth the bits used to transmit them, considering you’ve admitted to not knowing basic facts of the case.