I had to take a call right after the question was asked so I didn't hear the answer, but I see two very big possibilities. Starting with this....
.... This is a reasonable interpretation, and I saw that for two reasons: First, when written, it would be reasonable to assume they believed that a) someone who had committed insurrection couldn’t possibly win an election (e.g., they couldn’t fathom that the confederate states would have enough voting power to get someone like Davis elected as President as opposed to winning a Senator/Rep) and/or b) if someone who had committed insurrection WAS elected as president (which was ultimately made possible by flaws with the electoral college), then shouldn’t they be allowed to take office? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of a democracy? If the “majority” of the country believes a person should be president in spite of a constitutional clause, then isn’t that the will of the people saying they don’t agree with that part of the Constitution anymore? In other words, if they are supported by the “majority” then shouldn’t that be reason enough to allow them to take office? The second point someone falls apart when you compare it to age and birthplace limitations that everyone agrees can’t be superseded, but I can’t entirely disagree with the argument that those restrictions aren’t fundamentally different than the insurrection clause in their purpose, although I personally believe “committed insurrection” is a much more disqualifying reason than someone being 34 years old or born in Canada and lived all but the first few days of their lives in the US. I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Trump could be re-elected, then isn’t that the entire point of our Democracy? Even if it means the end of it?
Having said all that, I want it to be absolutely clear that I don’t think he should be permitted to hold the office, I don’t believe he should be allowed to live another day outside of a jail cell, and according to the constitution, should probably be executed for treason.