Tuesday, August 6, 2024

'Civil war conditions': Top Dem spills dark scheme to REFUSE Trump the presidency if he wins


'Civil war conditions': Top Dem spills dark scheme to REFUSE Trump the presidency if he wins


U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has a reputation for being a type of street fighter.

He's often brash and coarse. And confrontational. His history includes violating a federal conflict-of-interest law by failing to properly disclose stock shares his wife got for advising a financial technology trust company. He lashes out angrily at those with whom he disagrees. He makes rash statements.

And he jumped aboard his party's wild claims that President Donald Trump was an "insurrectionist" for the few hundred people who rioted on Jan. 6, 2021.

He actively promoted his demands, aligning with those of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that Congress had to impeach Trump.

And now he appears to be planning his own "insurrection."

That would be his plans to have Congress deny Trump the presidency should he win in November.

He explained his agenda:

And so they want to kick it to Congress.

So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because denying justice is not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at each year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job.


He has claimed repeatedly that Trump, on that basis, is ineligible for office.

Of course, Trump never has been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. Congress tried twice to impeach and remove him, including once after he already was out of office. And Congress failed both times.

Nonetheless, Raskin has adopted his own interpretation of that provision and insists on its application, to his satisfaction. Raskin is not the only member of Congress who apparently believes that it is within their power to determine a president guilty of a constitutional violation, as Pelosi's partisan January 6 committee largely spent all of its time and millions of tax dollars trying to assemble a storyline that portrayed Trump as guilty of something on that day when a protest turned into a riot.


Online commenters showed that Raskin's arguments were not being considered seriously.





No comments: