Staff Reports
In a move that can only be described as a desperate play from the Democratic playbook, two lawyers associated with the left have suggested Congress should block President-elect Donald Trump from assuming office—an idea that has sparked disbelief and hearty laughter from Republicans. The op-ed, running in The Hill, is not just a legal argument; it feels like a last-ditch effort by Democrats who apparently can’t face the fact that Trump remains a formidable figure in American politics.
The authors, Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, claim that the Constitution bars insurrectionists from the presidency, and in their minds, Trump ticks that box. They assert that the evidence of this alleged insurrection is not only compelling but “overwhelming.” One has to wonder if they’ve been watching too many late-night TV segments or perhaps sipping a bit too much on the liberal Kool-Aid while crafting their argument. Their first logic leap seems to hinge on various findings, including those of an obviously partisan January 6th Committee, which, according to a House GOP review, was merely a tool for attacking the former president—hardly an impartial judicial body.
Democrats are going to do this on Jan 6… 20% objection in House and Senate, easy; and then a majority in House and Senate… easy too; and Trump won’t be inaugurated…
Horrible.Democrat Lawyers Call for Congress to Block Trump from Taking Officehttps://t.co/earoc114bx
— Gary Tapperson 🇺🇸✝️ (@tap_gary) December 27, 2024
Down the rabbit hole they go, suggesting Congress has the responsibility to count Electoral College votes, which aligns curiously with criticisms Trump faced when he called for a pause in certifying the 2020 election results. The irony here is almost palpable. Republican Senator Eric Schmitt rolled his eyes at the arguments put forth, pointing out the absurdity of Democrats now implying that Congress should take such drastic measures, especially when their party’s history is riddled with claims of attacking the very structure they now seem to want to manipulate.
The duo hinges their argument on the 1887 Electoral Count Act, claiming Trump should not even be in the running due to that infamous “insurrection” label they keep tossing around. They suggest that if 20% of Congress objects, Trump’s electoral votes could be discarded, paving the way for Kamala Harris to, absurdly, make her way to the Oval Office. Yes, that’s right: an election result overturned because a couple of lawyers claim they have the inside scoop on who should or shouldn’t be president, simply based on their subjective interpretations of “normal use of words.”
As if the cherry on top of this bureaucratic cake wasn’t rich enough, these gentlemen also cited three separate legal “forums” to bolster their case, including a Colorado Supreme Court decision that managed to make waves by labeling Trump as an insurrectionist—a ruling that runs contrary to obvious Supreme Court precedence stating that states don’t hold the power to disqualify candidates for federal office. They might as well have pulled some legal reasoning straight from a magic eight-ball with how convoluted it truly is.
Breitbart’s legal commentator, Ken Klukowski, found it downright laughable. He pointed out that the only insurrection accusation was brought forth by a Democrat-controlled House, which the Senate dismissed when they acquitted Trump, to which one might assume Davis and Schulte were playing a rather amusing game of “let’s pretend due process doesn’t exist.” In many ways, the fantasy land these lawyers are living in mirrors the absurdity of a Hollywood flick, where the villain tries to thwart the hero’s rise simply out of spite. The reality remains that their calls for Congress to act against Trump are nothing more than a dalliance with meaningless political theater—reminding everyone that on the left, logic often takes a back seat to ambition and fantasy.
