Obama ally pushes Raskin plan for Congress to nullify election, install Harris: 'Insurrectiony'

Despite spending years complaining about threats to democracy, Democrats are scheming to thwart the collective will of the 77.2 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump in a fair and free election.

In a Dec. 26 op-ed for The Hill titled "Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now," David Schulte, a Chicago investment banker friend of both Barack Obama and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, joined the former Democratic president of the New York City Bar Association, Evan Davis, in echoing Rep. Jamie Raskin's (D-Md.) February call for Congress to block Trump from taking office.

The Democratic duo accused Trump at the outset of being an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" — not against the government but against the Constitution — then tried standing up this allegation on the unsuccessful attempt by Democratic lawmakers to convict Trump in early 2021 for supposed incitement of insurrection; on the say-so of the Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court; and on Democratic Jan. 6 committee members' partisan rhetoric.

Apparently convinced that their appeals to the perceived wisdom of fellow Trump-haters was sufficient to justify their scheme, the duo argued that it was still possible to void the Electoral College votes of the American people when sent to the president of the Senate — failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris — and to give the Washington establishment the unearned win they so desperately crave.

According to Schulte and Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Trump v. Anderson concerning Democrats' attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado does not prevent Congress from rejecting electoral votes on Jan. 6 on the basis of a supposed 14th Amendment disqualification.

'Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever.'

Schulte and Davis accused the conservative majority on the high court of "overreach" when indicating that "there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment" and claimed that the Supreme Court does not have a say about the counting of Electoral College votes "because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."

The Democratic duo then identified the way by which the 2024 election could be stolen and Harris installed as president.

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, a rewrite the Electoral Count Act of 1887, identifies two grounds for a congressional objection to an Electoral College vote. The first objection calls into question whether the votes by electors were "regularly given" and whether the recipient was an eligible presidential candidate under the Constitution. The other basis on which Congress could object is if the document submitted by a state governor identifying the electors was defective.

Schulte and Davis figure the way to go would be with the first objection.

"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House," wrote the Democratic duo. "If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president."

While Democrats may have the numbers in both the House and the Senate to make their objection known, numerically, this strategy is little more than the wishful thinking of anti-democratic radicals. Rep. Raskin contemplated going this route during a Feb. 17 panel discussion at a D.C. book store.

Raskin correctly and begrudgingly predicted at the time that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado's presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, calling the imminent decision an "abdication of [the court's] very clear duty to disqualify Donald Trump."

Raskin said on camera, "[The justices on the Supreme Court] want to kick it to Congress, so it's going to be up to us on Jan. 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified."

While apparently open to the idea, the Democratic congressman noted that the repeal of the people's will at the counting of the Electoral College votes "really could lead to something akin to civil war."

Raskin indicated further that after lawmakers disqualify the would-be president-elect, "We need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions all because the nine justices — not all of them but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection — simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means."

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer responded Thursday to Schulte and Davis' op-ed, writing, "Surprised it took so long but the Left is back at trying to subvert the election."

"You people are sick," tweeted Eric Trump.

BlazeTV host Steve Deacewrote, "This ... feels very insurrectiony."

"Oh, look. Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people," wrote Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump. "Threat to Democracy."

"Hey look insurrection," tweeted BlazeTV's Auron MacIntyre. "If people just standing outside the capitol can go to jail for years then journalists absolutely can."

Journalist Glenn Greenwald noted, "Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever. I hope it spreads."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!