How Democrats could plan their own January 6 'insurrection' if Trump wins
Democrats are notoriously lazier than conservatives, but not when it comes to keeping Donald Trump from becoming president again.
In a report from the Atlantic, Democrats are apparently weighing the option of “coming back with a vengeance” and refusing to certify a Trump win — ironically, on January 6, 2025.
“Isn’t that an insurrection?” Pat Gray asks. "Isn’t that what we’ve decided?”
“If there’s no law in Georgia, there’s no law in New York, no law in D.C., and they decide on January 6 to ‘come back with a vengeance’ — you know there will be demonstrations all over, and then they overturn the election,” Glenn Beck says, disturbed.
However, while the legal attacks on Trump have been relentless and from every angle, Stu Burguiere thinks it can actually affect the former president positively.
“I think it’s going to be cemented that a lot of this was just crazy political attacks, and that’s what Trump politically needs to convince people of, he needs to be able to get people over that line and think, ‘This actually was unfair,’” he explains.
Glenn agrees, especially considering the result lawsuits have had on other politicians.
“I’ve heard since Bill Clinton, that when you persecute somebody like this, and you’re unfair, and you use the court system to go after them, what happens with the black population, Pat?” he says.
“They’re sensitive to it,” Pat says, before Glenn agrees, “And they will rally around that person.”
To hear more, watch the clip below.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Maine's highest court hands Democrat official who wants to remove Trump from ballot another loss
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is going to have to wait for the United States Supreme Court before she can officially remove Donald Trump from her state's ballot.
On Wednesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower-court ruling that halted Trump's removal from the Maine ballot.
Bellows, who is not a lawyer, decided last month that that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. She reached that conclusion after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified.
Trump appealed Bellows' decision, and a lower court ruled that Bellows would have to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the novel issue before removing Trump from the ballot. Bellows then appealed that decision because she wanted to force Maine courts to make a ruling before the state's primary election on March 5.
But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously upheld the lower court ruling. The justices wrote in their opinion:
The Secretary of State suggests that there is irreparable harm because a delay in certainty about whether Trump’s name should appear on the primary ballot will result in voter confusion. This uncertainty is, however, precisely what guides our decision not to undertake immediate appellate review in this particular case.
The political world now waits for the Supreme Court to issue the final word in the matter. The justices will hear oral arguments on Feb. 8, and they will likely expedite their ruling because the election is less than a year away.
Bellows, meanwhile, has vowed to abide by the ruling of the court, the Associated Press reported.
While legal scholars debate whether the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the presidency or whether Trump participated in an "insurrection" — a crime with which he has not been charged — the former president has a plethora of legal arguments at his disposal to defend himself from the ballot removals.
It is widely expected, therefore, that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Legal experts explain the 'real legal arguments' at Trump's disposal against Democrats removing him from ballots
Legal experts agree: Donald Trump has numerous legal arguments at his disposal to fight back against states removing him from the presidential ballot.
Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump is disqualified for the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Then last week, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) — who is neither a lawyer nor directly elected by the people of Maine — made the same determination. Trump has appealed Bellows' decision but has yet to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Colorado's.
On "Good Morning America," ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams explained why Trump holds a significant advantage once the issue reaches the Supreme Court.
"The advantage that the Donald Trump team has is that if [the Supreme Court justices] accept any one of the arguments, he wins," Abrams said.
According to Abrams, Trump has five legal arguments at his disposal.
"You have a due process argument, you have definitional arguments, you have questions about whether it's self-executing or whether you need Congress to make laws," he said, explaining it is also a question of whether the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the president.
"There are real legal arguments that Donald Trump has. And because there's a menu of outs for the court, they're going to find one, I would think, that will say Donald Trump can remain on the ballot," Abrams predicted.
Meanwhile, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig broke down the "four or five different ways" that Trump can win by laying out the arguments contained within his appeal in Maine.
Honig, a former federal prosecutor, explained on Wednesday:
- "He says, 'Well, I did not engage in insurrection.' It's just one line, but I think he feels duty-bound to deny it."
- "He says, 'It's up to Congress, not the states, to tell us how the 14th Amendment works. Congress has not done that, other than passing the criminal law. Hence, the states are out of business.'"
- "He says, 'Well, even if it is up to the states, Maine did not follow its own procedures. The secretary of state was biased against me, etc.'"
- "He goes on to say, 'Well, even if they did properly follow their own procedures, that didn't give me enough due process. They had this one-day hearing. There was only one witness. It was a law professor. It doesn't comport even with minimum due process protections.'"
- "He says, 'Even if all those other arguments fail, the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States under the Constitution.'"
The strongest arguments, Honig went on to say, are No. 2 and No. 5.
Honig, moreover, predicted the Supreme Court will intervene and review Colorado's decision to find a "way to make one ruling and say, 'That's the end of this nationwide.'"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
9-0 SCOTUS Rejects Trump Ballot Ban: Huge WIN