The Far-Left’s Impending Election Denial

If you read and/or listen regularly, you know I don’t value political polling much. This election cycle illustrates why to perfection. There are so many push polls out there that are meant to influence instead of measure that none can now be trusted.

The notion that the only poll that matters is the final poll, the election itself, is highly valid. But today, even my confidence in that outcome is in question. In location after location, in swing state after swing state, we are starting to see reports of political operatives attempting to manipulate the vote, whether it’s tampering with drop boxes or electioneering by manipulating the voters themselves.

But one outcome of the election is certain. Far-Left Democrats will not go quietly should the Harris-Walz ticket come out on the losing end. The truth of the matter is this. They haven’t accepted the results of a losing presidential election cycle since Michael Dukakis. They didn’t accept Al Gore’s loss or John Kerry’s, and they certainly didn’t accept Hillary Clinton's.

In fact, it can be successfully argued that it is the Far-Left Democrats—the neo-Marxist progressives—who exist as the party of election denial.

A Prime example—prime example—of this comes courtesy of one of the worst Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) sufferers in Washington, DC: US Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

Raskin has publicly argued that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from running for or holding the office of the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That article states:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken 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, 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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

To say that Raskin is contorting reality to apply this argument to Donald Trump would be an understatement of Olympian proportions.

First, Raskin asserts that Trump's actions related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack constitute “engaging in or aiding an insurrection” against the United States. This is a contention that has been debunked by everyone not: a) suffering from TDS, and b) not nauseatingly partisan in their politics.

True, Trump held a massive rally on January 6th, 2021, and many of those participants marched down to Capitol Hill to exercise their First Amendment right to redress government. But there was no incitement to insurrection or to violence. In fact, the words Trump used in addressing the crowd’s intent to march to the Capitol were:

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard…”

Those are not the words used by an insurrectionist. They just aren’t.

Raskin then references the fact that the House of Representatives impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection, and although acquitted in the Senate, a “significant number” of Senators determined as a constitutional fact that Trump had indeed incited an insurrection. This, Raskin argues, aligns with the criteria set by the 14th Amendment.

There is a reason Alan Dershowitz—who was Raskin’s constitutional law professor at Harvard—says Raskin is one of his biggest disappointments. This ridiculous remark plays into that.

If there is no conviction, there is now High Crime or Misdemeanor. Essentially, since the US Senate acquitted Donald Trump of inciting insurrection, he cannot be implicated in any perceived insurrection fantasy, politically manifested or otherwise. It is completely irrelevant whether a “significant number” of Senators voted guilty. The term “significant” is subjective and most definitely doesn’t replace the definition of “majority.”

Raskin leans heavily on another wholly subjective point—and one whose subjectivity is vulnerable to TDS. He points to “some conservative legal scholars” and “bipartisan agreement” in Congress (if you count people like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski) that Trump's actions disqualify him from holding office again.

The key words here are “concensus” and “bi-partisan.”

Consensus is a word that neo-Marxist progressives use whenever they don’t have enough votes to win a vote or floor argument. It means nothing. Again, it is subjective and, at best, misleading. Ask yourself, what constitutes a “consensus”?

By definition, the word consensus means “general agreement or concord; harmony.” So, in the context that Raskin uses the word—and by the fact he compounds the diminishment of its significance by also using the phrase “some conservative legal scholars”—it again means nothing. In fact, for what his use of the notion is worth, it could be a grad consensus of three people.

To wit, Raskin’s ridiculous insistence that Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires no action by Congress for the disqualification to take effect and is—in and of itself—self-activating is constitutionally illiterate to an extreme.

Lastly, Raskin’s complete disregard for the authority of the US Supreme Court and the sanctity of the Separation of Powers is nauseatingly stunning. His complete unilateral nullification of the SCOTUS  decision in Trump v. Anderson, where they ruled that states cannot unilaterally decide on federal office eligibility under the Fourteenth Amendment and insistence that Congress could still enact legislation to enforce or clarify this aspect of the amendment, demonstrates not only a level of indignant arrogance but how deeply affected—mentally debilitated—he isby his personal animosity toward Donald Trump, the man.

It could be argued that Rskin—by way of this mental illness—is not fit to represent the people of his district from Maryland in the US Congress. Then, the Democrats ignored Joe Biden’s devastating cognitive decline for close to four years.

Raskin's position that Trump's actions and statements leading to the Capitol riot after the 2020 election, all of which have been adjudicated as benign by the US Senate in his impeachment acquittal, make him ineligible to run for president again due to disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment is laughable—pathetically and embarrassingly laughable.

In fact, one could argue that any attempt to interfere with the Electoral College vote—as Rasking plans—would constitute Double Jeopardy and a violation of Donald Trump’s constitutional rights.

Seeing as Trump, at that point, would be the duly elected president-elect, wouldn’t that constitute actionable election interference, if not an act of insurrection itself?