Congress Must Stop Trump From Being Sworn In, Argues Column in The Hill
I say Dems should go for it. Not because I actually want them to, but the theater will be of the absurd.
An op-ed in The Hill by two lawyers argues that Congress has the right and the duty to prevent Trump from taking office because he allegedly committed insurrection and is disqualified:
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol….
How will this blocking action take place? By refusing to count contested electoral votes if objection is made under the Electoral Count Act and sustained by both houses of Congress. That’s not going to happen, of course, but they want Democrats to try anyway.
I say Dems should go for it. Not because I actually want them to, but the theater will be of the absurd.
Trump won the popular vote, every swing state, and the electoral college
The Hill is now plotting an insurrection to stop him
Disbar the authors of this article and send the FBI into their offices
That’s how it works right? pic.twitter.com/Oo5JqYbWRx
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) December 26, 2024
The told us they were going to do this..pic.twitter.com/QlErX39IsR https://t.co/yhurr333Vy
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 26, 2024
The Hill about Insurrection when it’s on their terms. pic.twitter.com/RyGruKd8EV
— James Colvin (@JamesColvin88) December 26, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
One simple question for Democrats…were you lying on Jan 6, 2021 or are you lying now?
One simple answer, ‘yes’
Be ready for real political violence from the left in January. These idiots are already calling themselves ” the Resistance” in online diacussion boards. Some are even so brazen as to call themselves 5th columnists. Black block is going to be the in fashion for Antifashionist. Be prepared for a repeat of Jan 20, 2017. But now we know what to expect and need volunteers to counter it. We know the DC police won’t do anything about it. It’s up to us.
I’ve noticed that I am being followed on social media by people I don’t know, and they clearly are not the type I associate with. I’m no conspiracy guy but I find it highly unusual.
There’s a reason they color inside the ten ring black.
I’m just saying.
Are their lips moving?
Column from the Hill:
“We must always have our way.
We don’t care about elections.
We don’t care about democracy.
We will do anything to further our agenda.”
You are describing “Their Democracy”.
The Dems, RINOS, FBI, etc didn’t a very good job with the real stealth insurrection on J6. Color that revolution “Blue”.
Speaks for itself. Keep it up and soon you’ll be worse than the dog catcher in peoples’ eyes. The only problem is what you do to the country you pretend to care about. Let’s stop this crap!
I think they already are.
Don’t disrespect dogcatchers.
I believe John Eastman is facing disbarment for making a similar argument about the Electoral Vote count. Do these guys practice in a place where Republicans can at least attempt to do the same?
Would Biden still be president after 12:01 PM 1/20/25 if Trump isn’t sworn in? If not, would the office be officially vacant? What then? These educated fools probably haven’t thought about the mess we would have if that’s the case.
Blithering idjits all of them.
.
I believe that since the electoral college already voted that even if they were somehow successful ( I would put those odds at miniscule.) it would simply mean that Vance would become POTUS. At that point President Vance becomes extremely powerful and the Democratic party is all but destroyed as independent voters would not vote for them for at least one generation
Pet peeve: minuscule, not miniscule.
“Pet peeve: minuscule, not miniscule.” Is not a proper sentence. You are missing a predicate.
I think you should use proper grammar when correcting others.
Neither is your first sentence: the word “Is” shouldn’t be capitalized.
We now enter what’s called an “infinity of mirrors.”
Coyote – I knew that would happen.
No, Biden’s term ends at noon on the 20th. If there is no replacement president then the office is vacant, and the speaker of the House temporarily fills in until a president is chosen.
But assuming Trump’s victory on the 17th is confirmed on Jan 6, and he is still alive at noon on the 20th, he will automatically become president whether he takes the oath or not. The oath is only required in order for him to “enter on the execution of his office”. Until then he is the president but can’t yet exercise the office’s powers.
If Congress on the 6th were to reject Trump’s electors, as these guys want, then Harris would be declared elected, and would become president on the 20th.
And a period of massive chaos if not an actual civil war would begin.
Speaker Johnson has his eyes set on those dates…especially after meeting with Dems.
One little quibble. Until the House elects one, there is no Speaker, so the office moves temporarily down the established chain of command – except that if there is no Speaker, no other appointees can be confirmed, which means that there is no chain of command. Riddle me that, oh Oracle.
First of all, the House elects its speaker on the 3rd. By the 20th there is a speaker. But if there is none then the senate’s president pro tem fills in until there’s a president. In the coming senate that will be Chuck Grassley.
Note that no one but the vice president can become president by filling a vacancy; the others down the line are only temporary acting president.
“If Congress on the 6th were to reject Trump’s electors, as these guys want, then Harris would be declared elected, and would become president on the 20th.”
There is no second-place winner of a presidential election. One candidate wins, everyone else loses. Or do you think the authors of the Constitution missed a trick, when they established a set of rules under which one party could back its way into the White House should they have enough votes in Congress to prevent the opposing party’s presidential election winner from taking office?
I would argue they did not miss a trick. If an election-winning candidate is to be blocked from office by reason of having committed a specific crime, an independent authority must first find him guilty of said crime. That “authority” is a jury, having heard evidence in a court of proper jurisdiction to try the case. Without a guilty verdict from a jury, Trump as an “insurrectionist” is a fact not in evidence, no matter who holds an opinion to the contrary.
Note The Hill goes to great lengths to identify other “authorities” who agree on this point, even going to far as to call the House investigation “bi-partisan” in an attempt to give it a cachet of “fairness” if not independence. But none of the cited authorities provide a finding of guilt comparable to that which can be rendered by a jury. Even the Senate’s finding in an impeachment trial is a political, not a legal, finding. Note that the 14th Amendment says its provisions are to be enforced by “legislation,” strongly suggesting law, due process – also required by the amendment – and a finding of guilt by a jury are necessary to the execution of its rule under section 3.
Indeed. And if for any reason the 312 Republican electors’ votes are not counted, then Harris is the first-place winner. She wins 226-0.
The drafters and ratifiers of the 12th amendment certainly did miss a trick. By failing to specify who shall count the votes, or provide for any dispute over the count, and over which votes to count and which to disregard, they set up the crisis of 1877 and that of 2021.
Congress tried to correct that problem in 1878, by entrenching its own view in law; but Eastman correctly points out that that’s not how it works.
The sanction in 14A § 3 is not a criminal penalty. No criminal finding is necessary; all that is necessary is that the series of acts described shall have happened. It doesn’t even have to be a crime. It could even have been pardoned by the president.
Remember the section was originally adopted specifically to bar Alexander Stephens from holding office. Stephens had already been pardoned by the president, so no criminal proceeding against him was possible. But the 14A barred him from office (other than the presidency or vice presidency) until the House removed the disability in 1872.
On the contrary, legislation means a political act by Congress, not a judicial process.
The 14th amendment require due process only for a state to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process is not required in any other case. A disqualification under 14A § 3 does not deprive a person of any of those things. Stephens kept his life, his liberty, and his property, and thus neither needed nor received due process; but the 14A stopped him from being elected to Congress or as state governor until 1872.
Well, until the Electoral Count Act is ruled unconstitutional it’s still the law, and since Congress is co-equal with the other branches in interpreting how the Constitution applies to its daily operations, it is free to determine how to implement the duties outlined in the 12th Amendment. Taken as a whole and in light of other Constitutional guarantees, it is not unreasonable to assume Congress is to judge the validity of the Electoral Votes.
The amendment is meant to prevent a person from assuming office. It does not say anything about discounting an election winner’s electoral votes. The solution here is to allow Trump to take office, and then remove him via impeachment (if considering there “is no criminal offense”).
I did not say there was a “criminal offense.” I said there was no conviction for a crime that would prove the assertion that Trump is an insurrectionist. Even the historical facts you cited don’t necessarily demonstrate that an attempt to keep Stephens from becoming POTUS would not have required a finding of guilt by a jury (that is, a finding of guilt of insurrection, triggering the ban imposed by section 3). (It’s always possible that any process that may have kept him from office was unconstitutional, and arguments necessary to prove that were not raised. Government/congressional action, even when allowed by the courts, does not prove the act was constitutional. Court decisions allowing govt. action merely show the action wasn’t unconstitutional for the reasons cited by plaintiff. A successful challenge is always a possibility in the future.) Was his being stopped by the section ever adjudicated? You’re implying that he was denied liberty to run for office. The section must be interpreted in a way that it does not contradict other elements of the Constitution if it does not explicitly state it is meant to do so, or if it can’t be interpreted in a way in which it does not. My point in mentioning the amendment’s reference to “due process” (which has always been equated with “due judicial process”) was to point out that the amendment reinforces the concept and nowhere contradicts it.
“…legislation means a political act by Congress, not a judicial process.”
No legislation can deny due process. I’ve already pointed out (above) that Stephens, if he had attempted to run for certain offices, would have been denied his liberty to do so, and this denial would have violated the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. The only way to interpret the 14th Amendment’s section 3 so that it does not violate the 5th Amendment is to presume a jury finding of guilt must be the standard that Congress would use as a lever to move the political process of keeping a person from an office under the section.
Legislation that allows Congress to bar someone from office (and it’s clear that it’s the legislation that puts the entire 14th Amendment into actual effect, the amendment itself permits no other action but legislation meant to enforce its elements – the section does not “self-execute” as some claim) for having committed a crime, without having first had the fact of its commission being determined at trial violates the due process rights of the person so affected. Nothing in the 14th Amendment explicitly or implicitly allows the legislation written pursuant thereto to violate anyone’s due process rights. Nothing in the amendment gives Congress the authority to make an insurrectionist of a person who has not been found guilty of insurrection. Nobody is an insurrectionist until a jury finds them guilty of same. Otherwise the presumption of innocence prevents any government authority from moving against anyone, in any way, without proof of guilt.
Yes, all this means nothing with respect to Trump because the amendment doesn’t apply to a POTUS or FPOTUS.
What if Congress decides to ignore that fact? Would that not be a violation of Trump’s civil right to run for, and be elected to, the office of the POTUS? Where can a dispute over a political judgement by Congress be adjudicated (the act finding zero support anywhere in the Constitution – now we’re back at finding an Achille’s heel in the mechanics of the document)? Nowhere. SCOTUS won’t touch it. And this would be a travesty of justice. The only way to avoid such a conflict/problem is to require Congress to have a conviction in hand in order to trigger any authority under the 14th Amendment (this also presumes the authority applies, which we understand that in the instant situation it does not).
Wrong
If there were a genuine risk that all 312 Republican elector votes in favor of Donald Trump would be thrown out, couldn’t those 312 electors get together and agree to be “faithless” in favor of J.D. Vance and some agreeable V.P.?
I don’t think this would solve the highly far fetched scenario being discussed for one simple reason. I believe it is the elector(s) not their votes that would be dismissed, s0 I don’t know if they would even be given a chance to vote for Vance after that happened. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
In reality what is most likely to happen is Democrats will make the process take two or three times longer than it should by challenging the electors (something that is a high crime if the GOP does it) and making grand speeches with buzzwords like “insurrection” and what not. Once they are done then the Speaker whoever they may be, will call for vote the electors will be accepted and things will progress apace.
The idea is that Section 3 of the 14 Amendment would disqualify Trump from being elected. If both houses by majority vote so disqualify him, the next question is whether by 2/3 vote both houses would clear the disqualification.
If not, then the election goes to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets one vote They could pick whomever they want — not just Trump or Harris. There would be a lot of back room deals. See the Election of 1876.
As the Left said when the “justice” department refused to bring charges against Hillary Clinto after the FBI found that she did indeed break the law while serving as Secretary of State, “Since there is no guilty verdict, she has been vindicated.” Their logic should apply to Trump as well. Even more so since I believe that only Congress can declare him guilty of insurrection as he was a sitting President at the time.
A congressional finding of fault with a sitting POTUS finds its expression via impeachment and removal from office. But impeachment is a political decision, which is why the Constitution remarks that a POTUS removed via impeachment can still be tried for the offenses that led to the impeachment. (Double jeopardy does not apply because the impeachment isn’t a criminal trial trial, it’s a civil process that allows Congress to determine whether or not an accusation is sufficiently worrisome to require the removal of the POTUS at once, for the good of the country. A removed POTUS may still be tried and found “not guilty.” Impeachment and removal from office did not make the removed POTUS guilty of anything.)
No. The Vice President performs the duties of President until one is qualified to take office.
In this scenario though there wouldn’t be a VP. The term of office of the outgoing VP, Harris would have ended. The same electoral vote/count that would make JD Vance VP would be caught in stalemate that didn’t yet certify Trump selection by Electoral College as POTUS.
Did I miss something in the scenario?
See Epimetheus’ comment above. I believe he has a workable (political) solution to the problem.
The 20th Amendment, 3 Clause is a little unclear on this but I think that the intention is for the current VP which would be Harris to be a placeholder until the issue is resolved by Congress. She would not be President but “acting President” until Congress acts. It is conceivable that Congress would confirm Vance as VP and he would act until Congress did. I don’t know the answer to this one, though but the 20th is clear and Milhouse is wrong.
Dave/diver,
Guys, the obstacle is that if we are still at figuring out the electoral college count at inauguration day and beyond then Harris is no longer the VP and is ineligible to continue to serve. Her term of office ends when Biden’s does.
Once Biden’s term ends if there’s no resolution on the electoral college count then then Speaker of the House becomes the ‘acting President’. If the HoR hasn’t yet selected a Speaker (possible but unlikely) then it would fall to the President Pro Tem of the Senate to serve as ‘acting President’ until the electoral college count is resolved. Don’t forget the role of the Congress voting as State Delegations in an impasse.
Didn’t you leave out the President of the Senate, who is before the Speaker of the House in succession.
After the VP comes the Speaker, then Senate President.
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
After that it starts going to the various Secretary’s of the other departments. Frankly, In the to horrible to contemplate scenario where we make it past the final elected official on the list the country will have fallen anyway.
That is what I thought. Also, I have heard that the new President is sworn in by the Chief Justice at around 10am, just in case something happens during the Inaugural Ceremony. That way if something does happen at Noon we have a President that is officially sworn when the clock strikes noon.
Personally, I think there will be a lot of “sound and fury, signifying nothing” in the end. Though Democrats say it is (insert current brain dead talking point here), they will object to every elector/delegation, just as they always do when they lose.
Now the interesting time is going to be between the 6th and the 20th, it will either be so quiet as to make one paranoid or (more likely) there will be a bunch of lawfair that won’t go anywhere and much hemming and hawing on the talking head shows and Democrat nobility will be running their mouths non-stop as to how it wasn’t their fault that they lost, it was (insert current brain dead talking point here), it had nothing to do with their disastrous policies.
Nope
Nothing new from the left.
Do people seriously have such short memories that they don’t remember the absolutely CRINGE video from the self-important Hollywoke celebrities telling the electors to ‘do the right thing’?
Oh boy. How many things can one short piece get wrong?
No, it doesn’t. It bars such a person from being “a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or” from holding “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,”. The presidency is not such an office, and therefore even someone who was genuinely covered by the clause, e.g. Alexander Stephens, for whom the clause was originally designed, could still be elected president.
Again, the presidency is not one of the offices from which such a person is barred. Also, the elision in “an oath…to support” is important. The elision specifies what kind of oath it must be. It must be “an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State.” Trump was never any of those things, and thus never took the specified oath, so even if Alexander Stephens were barred from the presidency (which he wasn’t), and even if Trump were guilty of the charge, he’d still not be barred.
And it was, in 1872. Two thirds of each house voted “that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except” a list of exceptions, none of which includes Trump. There was no mention of the removal applying only to persons then living. So even if Stephens was barred from the presidency, and even if Trump had previously taken the specified oath, and even if he had subsequently engaged in insurrection, he would still not be barred because he is a “person whomsoever” and is not listed among the exceptions.
No, it is not. The clause specifies “insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. “The same” refers to the United States, not its constitution. You can’t insurge or rebel against a document, nor can a document have enemies. The oath specified is to support the constitution; the offense is insurrection or rebellion against the united states, or giving aid or comfort to their enemies.
No, it isn’t.
Okay, let’s see it.
In other and more accurate words, the senate failed to reach the two thirds vote required for conviction. That there was a simple majority for conviction is irrelevant, because that’s not the criterion. It’s like saying that a criminal jury voted 7-5 to convict someone, or even 11-1; that is not a vote to convict. “No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” The fact is that the senate acquitted Trump.
Says who? Inciting any other crime doesn’t encompass committing the crime. And that’s even if the object of “the same” were the constitution.
Of course it didn’t. It found that neither the district court nor the state supreme court had any jurisdiction to make a finding on the matter, so there was no need to even consider whether the finding was correct.
It was not bipartisan; the former Republicans who joined it did not represent the Republican Party, they were appointed by and represented the Democrat Party.
It’s not the “majority’s suggestion”, it’s right there in the explicit text of the constitution, in the very clause the decision was based on. You can’t say that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” excludes anyone but Congress from enforcing it, and then turn around and say but Congress can do it by means other than that specified! That doesn’t add up.
No, it isn’t. This is the same error that Eastman and Trump made, but in reverse. The constitution says the votes are to be counted in the presence of both houses. The vice president is to open the envelopes, and “the votes shall then be counted”. It doesn’t say by whom. Nor does it say that either the VP or Congress can reject any votes.
And it remains probably unconstitutional. This issue first flared up in 1886. There was no vice president at the time, so the president pro tem presided, and he claimed that as chairman of the meeting, and as the only person given a role in the proceedings, he got to decide which votes were valid. Congress, he said, were merely witnesses and had no role to play. Congress, of course, disagreed. The upshot was that in 1887 Congress passed an act embodying its view; but that’s not how it works. Congress saying “we’re right” is no different from the president pro tem saying “I’m right”. And doing it in the form of an act of congress doesn’t change that. I think Eastman is 100% correct that the Electoral Count Act is invalid; I think he’s wrong in asserting that in its absence the VP gets to decide. He’s wrong because that’s not what the constitution says. But right or wrong, it’s definitely not the case that the constitution supports Congress’s view.
<blockquote
The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Oops, I messed up that last block quote.
Having no facts or law, the opinion writing lawyers in The Hill are just pounding the lectern.
Holy Wall of Text, Batman!
These lawyers apparently have no idea why their side lost.
Hmm. Publicly advocating for collusion to commit the prevention of a duly elected potus assuming office sounds mighty insurrection-y to me.
I think the authors of that Hill article should be arrested, and indefinitely imprisoned w/o trial in GitMo until another administration takes over in 2029 in order to sAve OuR dEmOcRaCy.
If people just standing outside the capitol can go to jail for years then journalists absolutely can.
One even got over 20 years, and wasn’t even in DC….
referred for disbarrment for proposing insurrection. What’s good for the goose after all
The simple fact that these lawyers can be arrested in DC for insurrection does not mean they can be convicted in DC. I suspect the public backlash would be counterproductive, at least. In short, they are exercising their 1A rights to spout idiotic things in public, which for normal mortals is perfectly fine. But as *lawyers* they are advocating for clearly illegal actions, which is grounds for a bar complaint and a second career later of serving coffee.
Milhouse wants his own post
Milhouse needs his own blog
The Hill itching to pay a bigger settlement than ABC and George Snuffleupagus.
Nope. There’s no defamation in that piece. Lots of nonsense and misstatements of the law, but no false and defamatory statements of fact concerning any person.
The Hill was pretty clear about the opinion in the piece not necessarily having any relationship with their corporate opinion. But the two clowns who wrote it should be introduced to some “process punishment.”
A “Big Bang Theory” analogy, if you will:
Sheldon: “I have a comment to make….”
Leonard: “Here we go…”
—
Problem is, Democrat attorneys are not Sheldon, they’re the building elevator that doesn’t work.
So in 25 days when DJT is sworn in as President can these 2 be arrested and jailed for a year without trial for Insurrection?
yes!
The dems noticed that the Constitution sets that venue for contesting a doubtful election, this time.
Like they didn’t know. They have challenged every electoral vote every time they have lost. All this is just to play to the crazies in the democrat party who need something to keep from having a total mental collapse. Like those who said Kamala had a plan because of the way she held her arms when she walked off stage.
The US finally has a Guy Faulks day.
Well in theory, he all ready took the Oath. Maybe we should ask the UN if is ok if Trump can be president.
The only thing we need to ask the UN if for a forwarding address for their mail.
I’d like to be able to say that even the Dems aren’t that stupid, but I can’t.
I can’t help but wonder if they truly believe that there won’t be any negative reaction to arbitrarily turning over an election (setting aside the unlikelihood of success for the sake of argument) where it’s pretty damn clear what the populace has decided, or they know it won’t happen so it’s just consequence-free pandering to their base.
It’s undoubtedly a way to try to obfuscate the issue(s) until the vast majority are bored and move on from the details, while said panderers (project) point out / draw (logically fallacious) similarities between what Righties said in 2020-1 and since, and what they’re saying now in response to this.
when did the Dems ever worry about
if something was legal or not before
going fwd ,,,
next question … if they try this …
how many lampposts are there in DC.
how much rope will we need.
cuz I believe they are going to get their
wish … they have been itching for a
civil war for 20 years … they may get it.
they may not like it …
This “Theater of the Absurd” will merely serve to distract everyone from the on-going Ukraine raid on the US Treasury and kick backs to “The Big Guys”.
Someone should send loathsome Raskin a copy of the Christmas Day Ceausescu video…with pop corn.
……or of il duce
He needs a Mussollini reception.
Each one of these numbskulls should replace a Jan 6 defendant or convict in jail.
Thank goodness we have those selfless leftists safeguarding democracy for all of us!
The Demon-crabs keep trying to gain perpetual control of the government. If anyone violated the Constitution it was Sleezy Joe Biden!!
Again, for these idiot Democrats: the 14th Amendment did not amend the eligibility clause of Article 2 Section 1.
Second: the 14th specifically calls out “Senator” and “Representative in Congress” but not “President”. Therefore you cannot use “Officer” in place of “President”.
Third: What you are suggesting is election interference by obstructing a government proceeding and a conspiracy against rights. Ask Jack Smith, he’ll give you the details.
Lessee, dems are on life support at the national level and this is their best play? Agree they should go for it, as they are in FAFO land. I want them to FA so they can FO and in the words of HL Mencken, get it good and hard. Cheers –
And we thought that democrats loved democracy. That the will of the people must be recognized unless of course,, their guy or gal was soundly defeated .Congressman Jamue Raskin said in February 2024 that even with a Trump victory that it will be up to congress to disqualify him from taking office and it will,be done January 6. He predicted there will be violence from MAGA,mob, that congress will need security, maybe military, rhat it will probably be a civil war. He said that the Supreme Court would fall at their j9b of removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado so it would,fall on congress. Look it up. At a bookstore. February 2024. Sew the full quote
“He predicted there will be violence from MAGA,mob, that congress will need security, maybe military, rhat it will probably be a civil war”
There is not enough chain-link fence in the world, Nancy.
Are there more democrats who would try to pull this off or Republicans with guns?
Asking for a friend.
Section 5 of the Fourteen Amendment clearly specifies that Congress is the proper venue for adjudicating such matters.
The Lower Chamber (the House) accused Trump of “inciting an insurrection” in January, 2021.
The Upper Chamber (the Senate) held a trial in February, 2021, and declared him NOT GUILTY.
The case is closed. Trump will be inaugurated as President on January 20th, 2025.
Leave a Comment