I don’t even think it is open and shut. There’s a distinct lack of due process in this simple interpretation of “gave comfort”, plus the phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous. The clause, for example, disqualifies someone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. That’s a clear opportunity for a textualist to say that the insurrectionists/rebels are being treated separately from enemies of the state. It’s bullshit, but bullshit is welcome to anyone who adheres to textualism.

And what even is “aid and comfort”? Is incitement material aid, or does that not meet the threshold? And absent a conviction of someone he aided/comforted on a charge of insurrection and a conviction of Trump on said incitement, can we truly say he has given aid or comfort? I think a true advocate for civil rights would be right to say you cannot put the punishment before the trial, even if it’s not the outcome that matches my own preferences.

On top of this, the SCOTUS has an even easier and less cagy out – they simply say disqualification isn’t up to the courts, but is in fact up to the Congress. The 14th amendment says exactly this in section 5 – that it is up to Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions. Congress has not passed any appropriate legislation to disqualify Trump, therefore lol he isn’t. SUPER easy out for the court.

Don’t forget that section 4 of the 14th definitely makes the debt ceiling illegal yet we do that dance annually.