A recent opinion piece is urging Congress to block Donald Trump from taking office, citing the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause. The authors, Evan A. Davis and David Schoky, argue that Trump’s actions constitute an insurrection against the Constitution, making him ineligible for the presidency. This call to action is drawing parallels to the very actions that some, like Fani Willis, prosecuted individuals for in the past – questioning the peaceful transition of power.
The article makes several points to support its claim:
- The Second Impeachment Trial: The authors highlight that Trump was impeached by the House for incitement of insurrection. While he was not convicted in the Senate (as a two-thirds vote is required for removal), they emphasize that a majority in the Senate did vote for conviction. However, the video argues that the Constitution clearly states that conviction requires a two-thirds majority, making this claim misleading.
- Colorado Case: The piece references a Colorado court case where a judge, after a five-day hearing, initially found Trump was not disqualified. Though the Colorado Supreme Court later did disqualify him, this decision was eventually overturned, and Trump remained on the ballot. The authors still point to the lower court’s finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.
- January 6th Select Committee: The article cites the findings of the bipartisan January 6th Select Committee, which concluded that Trump was an insurrectionist. The video host questions the “bipartisan” nature of this committee, noting Nancy Pelosi appointed Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Based on these points, the authors argue that Congress has grounds to object to electoral votes for Trump. They suggest that if 20% of members in each house object, the electors from a state could be invalidated. The ultimate, and startling, conclusion they reach is that if all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president. The video host calls this a call for an “insurrection” itself.
The video then delves into the constitutional definition of impeachment and conviction, emphasizing that the Senate requires a two-thirds vote for conviction, not a simple majority as the article implies. The host argues that since Trump was not convicted and removed, and the Colorado case did not ultimately disqualify him, the premises for blocking him are flawed.
The discussion then shifts to concerns about the actions of intelligence agencies, referencing a question posed to Congressman Dan Crenshaw. The video brings up the 2020 letter from 51 retired intelligence officials who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, suggesting this was an attempt to influence the election. Crenshaw dismissed these concerns, stating he knows the agencies are not manipulating Americans domestically.
Finally, the video provides an update on the case of Ryan Routh, the individual accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. Judge Aileen Cannon has granted a motion to postpone Routh’s trial, now scheduled for September 2025. This delay is to allow for the review of a “voluminous” amount of discovery and for Routh to undergo mental health evaluations to assess a potential insanity defense or competency. The video notes Routh’s extensive criminal record and his travel to Ukraine, raising questions about how he was handled by border patrol and Homeland Security prior to the alleged assassination attempt.
