A radical right legal analysis drives stake into DJT's heart -- but is it credible?

After a years of research and analysis, two law professors who are aligned with the authoritarian, radical right Federalist Society (FS) are publishing a paper in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The legal analysis concludes that DJT is ineligible to hold elected office unless congress grants him amnesty. The paper will be released next year (the abstract is here). The legal analysis conclude that DJT is ineligible to hold office in light of his role in the 1/6 coup attempt. The NYT comments on the paper: 

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” 
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself. 

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” the article said.

What reasonable minds can think when trust is lost

Necessary context is this: Dogma and tactics of the powerful FS organization are aggressive, radical right, morally corrupt (including deeply mendacious and opaque), authoritarian, theocratic and plutocratic. The FS apparently is mostly responsible for selection of all six of the radical plutocratic, Christian nationalist Republican judges now sitting bench at the USSC. Its power, influence and bigoted authoritarianism should not be underestimated, no matter how hard the FS denies this. How one can rationally see this is as follows: 

1. The radical right FS has concluded that DJT not only cannot win the election in 2024, he is seriously damaging the FS agenda to kill secular democracy and replace it with some form of a corrupt plutocratic-theocratic dictatorship

2. Because of that fear, it called on its loyal law experts to gin up an argument that tries to stop DJT from seriously damaging the corrupt, authoritarian FS agenda, and "conservatism" (authoritarian radicalism) generally, by running for the presidency in 2024

3. But if the FS had decided that DJT was helpful to its tyranny & corruption agenda, it would have ginned up an argument that tries to empower DJT to advance the tyranny agenda

Even if the analysis the two law experts adduced is correct, one can reasonably believe their intent is cynical, corrupt and anti-democratic. That is because the group they support and align with, the FS, is cynical, corrupt and anti-democratic authoritarian. Maybe the legal analysis here is right, but it is right only in service to corruption, tyranny and bad government. 

Maybe this analysis is designed not to have any impact on DJT, but instead is intended to rehabilitate the crappy image the FS has earned for itself. That strikes me as the most plausible explanation.

Qs: Is that analysis too cynical and over the top, or is it plausible? Does the opinion even matter one way or another, e.g., in view of how transactional, cynical, immoral and unprincipled Republicans in congress are?