The part of the article called "History of Section 3" makes an interesting point:

...

"The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to 'support' the constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.

"Mr Trump's lawyers argue the provision isn't intended to apply to the president, contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn't to 'support' the constitution but instead to 'preserve, protect and defend' it.

"They also argue that the presidency isn't explicitly mentioned in the amendment, only any 'officer of the United States'.

[Note from me: The next paragraph is the interesting bit]

"Mr Trump made the opposite argument defending against his prosecution for falsifying business records by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, contending the case should move to federal court because the president is "an officer of the United States".

"The prosecutors argued that language only applies to presidential appointees — Mr Trump's position in Maine.

"The contention that Section 3 doesn't apply to the president drew a scathing response from the Colorado Supreme Court last month.

"'President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,' the court's majority opinion said.

"'Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.'"

After reading this bit from the second paragraph I quoted above "...contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn't to 'support' the constitution but instead to 'preserve, protect and defend' it' I'm wondering how on earth Trump can argue that inciting a riot at the Capitol, where people died trying to defend the Capitol can be defined as preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.