Maine GOP Chair Got SEVEN Chances To Explain Why Removing Trump From Ballot Was Wrong . . . He Went 0-for-7.

"wrong on so many levels . . . just wrong . . . just flat out wrong . . . her reasoning is completely wrong . . . her decision is completely wrong . . . she’s wrong . . . she’s just flat out wrong"

Strike one . . . strike two . . . strike three . . . strike four . . . strike five . . . strike six . . . strike seven.

Shenna Bellows, Maine’s Secretary of State, ruled one week ago, that Donald Trump was disqualified from being on the state’s 2024 primary ballot, because he had engaged in surrection in violation of the very clear wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Since then, as is the case whenever a public official rules against Trump, Bellows has received numerous death threats, as well as other threats of violence against her, her family, and her co-workers.

(It appears someone will have to be murdered by a Trump supporter before any judge becomes brave enough to jail Trump until his trials. I see no evidence to contradict that and, honestly, it might take more than one innocent person being killed. That’s the level of judicial cowardice on display.)

Joel Stetkis, the chair of Maine’s Republican party, opposes Bellows’s decision. CNN’s Boris Sanchez gave Stetkis SEVEN opportunities to provide his reasons for that opposition. Stetkis could not do it. At the beginning and end of the interview, Sanchez actually embedded three possible reasons in his questions. Stetkis ignored the lifeline, opting to fully embarrass himself.

Sanchez: Trump is fighting a pair of historic decisions that disqualify him from primary ballots in Colorado and Maine. They hinge on the 14th Amendment so-called insurrectionist ban. . . . [I]t seems these cases are destined for the Supreme Court. We want to discuss [this] with Maine Republican Party Chair Joel Stetkis . . . Joel, earlier we spoke with one of the people who filed to challenge Trump's eligibility in Maine, Tom Saviello. He’s a fellow Republican who voted for Donald Trump twice. He argued that the group that the group he’s with, the people that challenged the eligibility, are going about doing this through Maine’s laws, that this is a legal process. I want you to listen to more of what he said.

[Video of Sanchez’s earlier interview with Tom Saviello: “Maine has a law. We have to follow what our laws say on the book — on the books — and unless they want to. There’s two ways you can do this. You can change the law or you can change what’s required by the state of Maine . . . When we complain, which we're allowed to do under our constitutional rights and under Maine state law, she had a hearing which was very fair, on which interestingly enough, they [Trump’s legal team] brought no witnesses in. They had very few pieces of information. They came and they objected to her participating, after the hearing’s record was closed. I sometimes think they took us for granted.”]

Sanchez: He’s, of course, talking about the secretary of state’s decision to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. What is your response?

Stekis: Well, Boris, I think the simplest way we could put this really is, you know, we've got an unelected bureaucrat who likes to pretend that she's a lawyer and she's literally taking away the voters’ choices in Maine. You know, here in Maine and across the country, regardless of, you know, whether they like Donald Trump or not, you know, Bellows is wrong on so many levels and it’s getting to the point of really being embarrassing.

Sanchez: But if the state law, like the state constitution, makes it so that if someone has a complaint about a candidate, they take it up with the secretary of state, who then is the arbiter, how could she be in the wrong for making a decision based on what was presented to her in that hearing?

Stetkis: Well, you know, her — her decision process was — was just wrong. You know, she’s there to — to support Maine’s — Maine’s voter — Maine voting rights, and she’s doing exactly the opposite. You know, we’re going to fight this thing to the highest extent that we need to. And what she’s doing is just flat out wrong.

Sanchez: Why would you say that? Do you object to Donald Trump’s participation on January 6th? Do you think that Article 5 of the 14th Amendment — or rather Article 3 of the 14th Amendment is — doesn’t include the presidency? What’s your main argument against her decision?

Stetkis: Well, this — this has so much more to do with the, you know, the suppression of the vote, as opposed to Donald Trump. We would — we would oppose this decision regardless of what Republican she decided that she was going to arbitrarily decide Maine voters aren’t going to be allowed to.

Sanchez: You’re saying, Joel, you’re saying that it’s arbitrary, but what is it about her decision, what is it about her argument, legally, that you’re opposed to?

Stetkis: We’re just opposed to — to her taking away the rights of the voters to be able to choose the leader that they they want to vote for, or not.

Sanchez: But if there’s a part of the Constitution that says that if someone is an insurrection, a state can intervene to remove them from a ballot, and she is designated to make that decision, according to Maine’s state constitution, then isn’t it up to her?

Stetkis: Her reason — her reasoning behind her decision is completely wrong.

Sanchez: So what is the reasoning thay you object to?

Stetkis: No matter how many times — no matter how you ask the question, her decision is completely wrong. There are — there are — there are attorneys —

Sanchez: Joel, but give us the details. Why is it wrong? Why is it wrong?

Stetkis: So Boris — so — so, Boris, this is the thing, right? There are — there are attorneys and judges, Democrats and Republicans across this country, that have said that she’s wrong. Not one time in my life have I ever agreed with Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, until now. Gavin Newsom also believes the people should have the right to —

Sanchez: I’m just trying to get to the basis — to the basis of your legal argument and you’re not giving me any details. You’re just saying that it’s flat out wrong. Why is it wrong from a legal standpoint? Like, is it that you think her interpretation of the amendment is wrong? Is it that you think that it doesn’t apply to the presidency, that it’s not a self-executing portion of that amendment? Is there any detail you can give us other than saying she’s flat out wrong, Joel?

Stetkis: So — so one of the — one of the things that we've seen in the last — in the last week are — are very highly respected lawyers and judges, Democrats and Republicans alike, that have come out and given plenty of legal argument on why that she’s wrong. You know, my job — my job here is to protect the voters in the state of Maine. And what she is doing just shows absolute contempt for the everyday American. They feel like we’re not smart enough to think for themselves that she needs to pull somebody off of the ballot because we’re not smart enough to know whether we should vote for that person or not. And she’s just flat out wrong.

Sanchez: To be fair, I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. I think there’s a legal argument to be made. It doesn’t seem like you have articulated the exact legal argument and the flaw that you see in her decision. Nevertheless, Joel, we’re grateful to have you and get your perspective. Thank you so much for being with us.

Stetkis: Thanks, Boris. Have a great day.

I should point out that no one else on the far-right can offer a better answer to the question. MAGA cannot even articulate a threadbare legal argument or an incoherent constitutional basis for keeping Trump on the ballot. They have nothing and listening to them struggle is hilarious. (h/t David Pakman)