It was a comment that ignited a firestorm on social media and turned the heads of legal analysts and commentators alike. Yet, what troubles me is that Im not sure who is worse: the person who said it or the people who agree with it.

In a Sunday night interview with Fox News host Mark Levin, Donald Trump claimed he had every right to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

Its so crazy that my poll numbers go up, he told Levin. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted, your poll numbers go down.

I dunno about you, but the polling Ive seen over the last month shows Kamala Harris flipping the script considerably since replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, but never mind that for the moment.

The real question is, has there ever been someone this detached from reality and responsibility? And what about his supporters?

Trump, seeking a return to the White House, faces four federal charges regarding his alleged attempts to thwart the 2020 election results, which he has claimed was stolen from him via widespread voter fraud. Of course, hes never provided any evidence to support his claim.

However, I agree there were widespread efforts to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. They just happened to be committed by Trump, Republican Party acolytes and conservative cult members.

Last week, special prosecutor Jack Smith filed a revised indictment against Trump, reshaped in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts, but not for acts as a private citizen or candidate. Trump has argued his actions were official acts, so he should not be prosecuted.

His claim is flawed. Candidates can seek recounts and file lawsuits to contest an election. Trump, however, engaged in efforts widely viewed as illegal, unethical and unconstitutional. These actions included:

• Pressuring state officials to find votes 11,780 of them to be exact (which would have allowed him to win the state of Georgia by exactly one vote).
• Orchestrating a scheme involving fake electors, dozens of whom now face federal charges of voter fraud.
• Attempting to coerce the Department of Justice into declaring the election corrupt.
• Attempting to coerce then-Vice President Mike Pence to violate his oath of office by not certifying the vote.
• Inciting a violent attack on the Capitol to disrupt the certification of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021.

Legal experts, former prosecutors and maybe your uncle have been weighing in on Trumps comment as potentially self-incriminating. Not so fast.

Trumps comments could certainly be seen as a form of admission, but whether it amounts to a legal confession is more complex and would depend on the specifics of what he said, the intent behind his statement, and how it aligns with the legal definitions of the charges he faces.

Was he referring to challenging election results through legal avenues, or was he implying something more direct, such as attempts to overturn the results through illegal means? He didnt specify.

For any statement to be considered a legal confession, it must be directly related to illegal actions. For instance, if Trump admitted to actions that fall under the legal definition of obstruction, fraud or other criminal behavior, prosecutors could argue that as an admission of guilt. From a legal standpoint, that would be hard to parse based on what he said Sunday and how he said it.

The legal system also considers the intent behind actions. If Trump believed his actions were lawful, his defense might use it. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, how could he not know? If he knew what he was doing was illegal, or if advisors told him his actions were illegal and he ignored that advice, that would be more damaging. Either way, special prosecutor Jack Smith could use the statement as evidence, but likely part of a larger case rather than a stand-alone confession.

Under the law, the president has no constitutional authority to interfere in the conducting of elections or their results. Article II of the United States Constitution outlines the powers and duties of the president but does not define any electoral role for the chief executive.

Election administration is primarily the responsibility of state governments. The Electoral College, established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, is the mechanism we use to elect the president and vice president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the date for federal elections and to establish procedures for selecting electors in the Electoral College. The president does not have the power to change these procedures or dates.

The executive branchs role in the Electoral College is limited to the vice presidents role as the president of the Senate, who oversees the counting of electoral votes, and who then certifies that count. The president has no constitutional authority to interfere in the certification process and change its results.

The Constitution and federal law provide mechanisms for resolving contested elections, but these paths involve the courts, Congress and state authorities, not the president.

Arguably, one cannot construe what Trump did as an official act since it is outside the role the Constitution spells out for a president. It can only be viewed as a political maneuver driven by self-interest.

Did Mark Levin, a practiced attorney, even bother to raise any of these points? No. Instead, he provided Trump with a free advertisement that shamefully showed what kind of attorney he truly is while giving his viewers their fix of red meat a low-energy attempt to counter the Harris-Walz interview, perhaps.

This laundry list of legalities may feel academically mundane, but the oath of office explicitly requires a president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This includes upholding the legal framework that governs elections. The idea of a current or former president being ignorant of or indifferent to these constitutional obligations is troubling, as it strikes at the very foundation of democratic governance.

Lets not kid ourselves. Legalese aside, weve seen enough of Donald Trump to know he either thinks had the right to do everything hes done to subvert the election process, or he didnt care that he was breaking the law.

More troubling, though, is how Trumps supporters seem wholly dismissive of their candidates dismissiveness. We have an entire history of supporters dismissing what amounts to an encyclopedic girth of Trump transgressions, including last weeks disgraceful, dishonorable incident at Arlington Cemetery. So much for lovers of the military.

Republicans have long claimed to be the party of accountability, responsibility, and an ethical code of morality beyond reproach. How can they claim such veracity yet completely ignore it when one of their own violates such tenets?

Whats worse: a candidate of such moral turpitude or the voters who support him?

This is a profound and troubling aspect of contemporary politics. The disregard for such standards by supporters of a candidate who openly flouts these principles raises serious concerns about civic responsibility, our nations political discourse and the nations future.

Ironically irony being one of the shameful hallmarks of Donald Trumps political tenure he has repeatedly claimed that the prosecutions against him are examples of election interference and has argued that they are illegal. Theyre politically motivated, he whines, efforts to undermine his 2024 reelection bid.

Well, if you hadnt behaved as you have in the first place, opponents wouldnt be interfering with your reelection aspirations. Dont like being accused of criminality? Stop behaving like a crook. Respect isnt given its earned.

Trump was wrong the moment he lost the election and refused to call Joe Biden to concede. Instead, he went beyond that childish decision to break laws designed to protect one of our nations most fundamental rights. In the history of the United States, there has never been an overt plot by a sitting or former president to stage a coup or retake power in the manner typically associated with a coup dtat.

Bad as it was that Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, far worse is his claiming he had the right to do so. What kind of person can behave that way, think that way, misunderstand or disregard the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and still think he deserves to be reelected to the presidency?

When a leader willingly and selfishly subverts these principles and dares to think hes allowed to do so, it raises serious questions about his or her fitness for office, and even more serious questions about an electorate willing to support him.