House Oversight Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is insisting that former President Donald Trump should be barred from running for office in 2024 over the January 6 protest.

Raskin, while speaking Tuesday on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” falsely claimed that Trump participated in insurrection during the January 6 protest. The lawmaker noted that the Constitution disqualifies Trump from running for office on that ground.

“The hard question is not should the courts end up deciding because the courts will have to decide this because it’s a Constitutional question,” Raskin said. “The hard part is, did he engage in insurrection or rebellion? That’s the hard part for some people. Is incitement to insurrection participating in insurrection? The House of Representatives already impeached him for inciting insurrection… It’s not enough to show that it happened. And you know, against that, I would simply say, the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that you can’t run for office if you have sworn an oath to the Constitution, but then you participated in insurrection rebellion. It doesn’t say if you have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. But I think that that will become really the heart of the legal argument Donald Trump tried to overthrow Constitutional democracy. And the Constitution has a mechanism for dealing with that which is a very strongly pro-democratic mechanism. It says this is a big country. a lot of people can be president. You don’t have to go back to somebody who has already proven himself to be untrustworthy by being disloyal to the Constitution and trying to overthrow the constitutional order.”

Raskin’s comments come as efforts are being made in a Denver District Court to get Trump kicked off the 2024 ballot. The challenge to Trump’s 2024 eligibility claims that the former president can not run for office based on provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars insurrectionists from holding office.

Scott Gessler —a former Colorado secretary of state and part of Trump’s team—, cited Eugene v. Debs, where a socialist politician ran for president despite being imprisoned for sedition because he discouraged military recruitment during World War I.

“When there are many definitions of insurrection, that really means there are none,” Gessler said. “… Frankly, they’re making up the standards so it fits the facts of January 6.”

A similar case was made before a federal court in New Hampshire. The case was, however, dismissed after the court ruled that the claims could not be decided by legal principles or by a court of justice.