Eight years back around this time of the year, some Hollywood has-beens released a message urging Electoral College representatives to not vote for Trump, whom they deemed unfit to be President, before the results were certified. They hoped to convince enough Republican electors such that Trump's electoral college tally would be reduced to less than the required 270.

Concurrently, Electoral College representatives received death threats while anti-Trump protests and riots sprung up in Democrat-run states. These undemocratic efforts backed by Democrats failed and Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

This time, the Democrat insanity isn't overt -- possibly because the Democrats spent four years pushing the 'insurrection' hoax and used it during the bumbling word salad chef's fumbling campaign. Perhaps the Democrats don't want to appear blatantly hypocritical by rejecting Trump's emphatic victory. Perhaps they know their efforts will be futile and have settled to peddling hoaxes during the Trump presidency.

However, not all Democrats think a Trump Presidency in 2025 is unavoidable.

Recently, The Hill published a piece written by Columbia Law Review editor-in-chief Evan Davis and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal David Schulte, directed at Congress. The authors quote Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to make the case that Trump's disqualification is based on insurrection against 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.”

To support their insurrection claim, the authors cite evidence from three forums:

The first forum is 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 authors conveniently forget that Trump was cleared by the Senate and that the impeachment failed.

The second forum cited is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment disqualification. The authors quote the Court ruling that “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.”

However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor in their unanimous verdict that "states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 for federal offices, especially the Presidency."

But the authors claim the "Supreme Court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection," hence Congress can reject electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6.

The authors add that "counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."  

The authors recommend that Congress reject the electoral vote based on the Electoral Count Act, which allows for an objection if "the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not 'regularly given.'"

"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by a 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."  

Yes, you read that correctly -- they still think Kamala, who lost both the Electoral College and popular vote, can be president.

The authors also cite testimonies from the 'bipartisan' inquiry of the January 6th House Select Committee.

This section is littered with the following falsehoods.

"Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have."

".....while the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”

The piece concludes that the Democrats must "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."  

So what do we make of this?

The piece, littered with myriad debunked Democrat lies, isn't even remotely persuasive. Trump's emphatic victory last month was a rejection of those lies by the public; it was also a verdict against law enforcement and judicial overreach.

The self-righteous often lack self-awareness, hence the irony that an insurrection hoax was being used to mount a case for an insurrection wasn't comprehended by the authors.

What is amazing is that The Hill deemed this worthy of publishing. Before an article is published it is fact-checked while the editorial board decides if the piece is worthy of public consumption. But for this piece, the factual inaccuracies and the unintended irony were ignored.

There's a slim possibility that the goal behind the publishing of this piece is that the outrage caused will boost traffic to their website.

The piece received intense backlash on social media.

The Hill may claim they allow all kinds of opinions. But they haven't published articles about unfairness in the 2020 elections?

The Hill didn't cover the influence of Zuckerbucks on the 2020 elections, Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story, or former intelligence officials falsely claiming that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. All The Hill's articles on the 2020 elections that appeared seem to be pushing Democrat narratives.  

This serves as another reminder that outfits like The Hill serve as mouthpieces for the Democrats. To call them pro-Democrats is an understatement -- they are the Democrats.

This absurd piece involves a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 elections and must be regarded as the Democrats thinking aloud.

The NYT, the WaPo, etc., are the foremost Democrat mouthpieces, while The Hill and Politico are tier 2 propagandists aspiring to achieve tier 1 status. Perhaps decision makers at The Hill think that they will achieve tier 1 status by publishing such pieces, i.e., Democrats will be impressed by their propaganda.

Like all propagandists, The Hill doesn't care about their credibility after publishing such a shoddy article. Their goal is not to cover facts but to relentlessly push hoaxes, and they do so unrepentantly.

This should be a wake-up call to those who assume that the Democrats have surrendered to the inevitability of a Trump presidency. They may not be able to prevent Trump from being inaugurated, but they will most certainly place impediments during his Presidency.

Hopefully everyone, especially President Trump and his team, remains very alert.

Image: AT via Magic Studio