In an op-ed published by the paper, two Democratic lawyers called on Congress to block President-elect Donald Trump from taking office. hill His remarks Thursday drew disbelief and ridicule from Republicans.
in the work of the title “Congress has the power to prevent Mr. Trump from taking office, but they must act now,” lawyers Evan A. Davis and David M. It stipulated that he was ineligible to become president, and claimed that it was “proof that Donald Trump has been inaugurated as president.” This kind of violence is overwhelming. ”
They claimed that “this issue was decided in three separate forums,” one of which was the Jan. 6 committee appointed by Representative Nancy Pelosi. concluded It was “designed “To further a political narrative” and “a tool to attack President Trump.”
President Trump's second son, Eric Trump, posted on X: “You guys are sick.”
Davis and Schulte also argued that counting electoral votes is “a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution,” which is because President Trump asked Congress to refrain from certifying the 2020 election results. Until the anomaly, which some Republicans said was the same argument they attacked when they asked for it, is completely mitigated.
Sen. Eric Schmidt (R-Missouri) sarcastically wrote to X that it “looks like he's inciting an insurrection.”
Davis and Schulte note that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 provides two grounds for objecting to electoral votes: “If a state's electors are not legally certified, or if one or more electors' votes are He argued that the provision stipulates cases where the provision is not provided “regularly.'' : “Voting for a constitutionally disqualified candidate clearly follows the normal use of the term 'out of regular practice.'”
They said 20 percent of the House and Senate would have to object under the counting law, and if the objection was supported by a majority of the House and Senate, Trump's electoral votes would not be counted and Kamala Harris said it would be counted. elected president.
They argued that while Republicans were unlikely to agree, “Democrats need to take a stand.”
Stephen Chan, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, posted: Democrats want to steal the election and override the will of the American people. ”
Trump campaign adviser Alex Brusewitz says former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark has proposed legal avenues to challenge the 2020 election results, as Davis and Schulte are doing. He pointed out that he was subject to political persecution for drafting a memo.
Davis and Schulte's second forum is Trump's second impeachment trial over the January 6 Capitol riot, even though the Senate acquitted him of “incitement of insurrection.” he claimed.
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Krukowski called their arguments “ridiculous.”
“Only the Democratic-controlled House brought that charge, and then the Senate acquitted President Trump on impeachment charges. For those who are confused about what that means, the law… “The reality is that when you're found not guilty of something, you're not guilty by definition,” he said.
“President Trump has never been charged with any involvement in the insurrection, let alone been convicted of any such crime,” Kurkowski added.
Davis and Schulte argued that the third court would be for the Colorado Supreme Court to affirm a lower court's finding that Trump committed an insurrection to keep him from voting.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court Trump vs. Anderson Later, finding that states did not have the power to disqualify candidates for federal office, Davis and Schulte called the ruling “dictatorial,” meaning “the speculation of opinions unnecessary to deciding the case.” ”, he claimed.
Mr. Krukowski, who wrote the summary in Trump vs. Anderson Speaking on behalf of former U.S. attorneys general from three different presidential administrations, he said that argument was “absolutely ridiculous.”
“It is simply absurd to say that the Supreme Court did not clearly rule that Congress must pass a disqualification bill, and in fact Congress chose not to do so,” he said. add:
The Supreme Court judgment is anderson “The relevant provision is Section 5, which authorizes Congress, subject to judicial review, of course, to pass “appropriate laws'' to “enforce'' the Fourteenth Amendment.'' The court continued: , argued that Congress created a broad disqualification system in 1870 that was later repealed, and that the only such disqualification statute currently on the bill is the Insurrection Act, 18 USC 2383.
“This is a court decision, not an order, and Congress is obligated to abide by it,” Krukowski said.
The editorial does not specify the author's political leanings, but Davis is an attorney at Cleary Gottlieb who represented the late Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo and was a 1998 New York attorney general. He was also a Democratic candidate.
Meanwhile, David Schulte is a Chilmark Partners attorney and Chicago investment banker who is a “friend and financial supporter” of former President Barack Obama and former presidents Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. The newspaper reports that he is also a friend of the president. chicago magazine.
Follow Christina Wong's X on Breitbart News. society of truth,or facebook.
