The Republican presidential primary isn't officially over yet, but it may as well be. (Nikki take some notes, if you'll pardon the Ben Shapiro reference. This isn't funny anymore.) That means that we will very likely be seeing either a rematch of the 2020 election or Trump taking on whoever the Democrats dredge up to replace Uncle Joe if they have the nerve to do so. And judging by the latest polling, particularly in the swing states, Trump has at least a reasonable chance of winning. But what then? Back in the day, once the votes had been counted and a winner declared, it was simply assumed that the person with the most electoral votes would be sworn in a couple of months later. But can we really rely on that happening next time? At Townhall, our colleague Kurt Schlicter examines the question and appears to conclude that it's not a sure thing at all. The Democrats are simply too hell-bent on keeping the Bad Orange Man out of office and if they can figure out a way to make that happen, they likely won't hesitate.
The Supreme Court will not throw Donald Trump off the ballot through some sort of deus ex MSNBCmachina, and Trump’s polls are improving while President Crusty’s are getting worse, so we face the real possibility of Donald Trump winning the presidency. Obviously, it’s not a done deal, but it is a bigger possibility than it used to be. Well, the Democrats are facing it, and now they’re trying to figure out how to stop him from taking office if and when he wins the election.
They’re very sensitive about us talking about this. I was onstage at CPAC with Townhall’s own Larry O’Connor and, at one point, I was talking about how Joe Biden was not going to leave office early voluntarily at the behest of Barack Obama and some cabal of Democrat poobahs concerned about him blowing the election. Then, of course, goofy pinko Aaron Rupar converted that into me saying that Joe Biden will refuse to leave office if he loses the election. I didn’t say that then, but I’m going to say it now. He already told us he won’t allow Donald Trump to take office. He couches that in terms of not letting Trump win the election, but are we sure that’s what he means? This is a guy well-known for talking about turning F-16s on American dissidents. After all, we’re treasonous traitors and MAGA extremists and such. Isn’t he justified in doing whatever he must to stop us?
Kurt frames this scenario as one where the decision to prevent Trump's return would be made by Joe Biden, at least initially. I would counter that Biden is no longer capable of any complex plans that steer him into uncharted waters. But the people handling his job and writing his cue cards certainly are, and they probably would. They are simply too desperate to hold on to power and too fearful of what a resurgent Trump might do.
Would they really have the audacity to even try? After all, they've spent more than three years lecturing us about how January 6 was very nearly the end of the world as we know it because some people supposedly tried to prevent the orderly transfer of power. It seems almost impossible that even the Democrats could be so completely tone-deaf that they might turn around and do the exact same thing in the following election cycle. But then again, I'm probably giving them too much credit. They very well might try.
So how would that work? The most blunt approach of simply refusing to accept the results and having Joe Biden lock himself in the Oval Office wouldn't work, or at least not for long. There is no requirement for him to attend the swearing-in ceremony of the winner. Donald Trump proved that in 2021 and the transition still took place as scheduled. Sooner or later they would muster enough people to break down the door and physically lead Joe Biden out if necessary.
Kurt suggests instead that it's possible that the GOP could lose the House majority even if Trump wins the presidency. In that scenario, the Democrats would be back in charge and they might decide to "pull some shenanigans with the counting of the electoral college ballots!” The level of hypocrisy on display would be staggering, particularly after everything they've put Trump through since he appeared to attempt it. But yet again, we're dealing with people who typically don't demonstrate very much self-awareness when their backs are against the wall.
It's not inconceivable that there could already be a plan in place inside Democratic circles to kick their lawfare campaign against Trump into high gear if he is declared the winner on November 5th. They could summon up Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, and the most liberal judge they can get their hands on to simply declare Donald Trump guilty of something... anything... and throw him directly in jail. Of course, that would require some sort of state-level charge rather than a felony because otherwise, Trump would just pardon himself. It would probably need to be something like the charges in Manhattan or Georgia.
But it doesn't seem as if even that would do the trick unless they had the full cooperation of everyone in Washington, including the Supreme Court. (With several Trump appointees agreeing.) There's no requirement saying that the swearing-in ceremony has to be held in Washington at the traditional location. LBJ was sworn in on Air Force 1. Trump could take the oath inside of a jail cell and then he would still be the President.
Kurt also suggests that the Democrats might try to disrupt the transfer by using force and employing physical violence. He notes that they could "convene their radical Antifa, BLM, and other scumbag Democrat shock troopers in Washington, DC" and shut the process down. But, again, for how long? Even if Biden refused to call in the National Guard or the Capitol Hill Police to break up the brawl, even rioters have to sleep sooner or later.
In the end, I'm just not seeing it. I'm not saying the Democrats wouldn't like to try to prevent Trump from taking office. They might even give it a go. But it seems like an impossible task. They would be doomed to fail even worse than the rioters of January 6th, though they might put on a far more spectacular show than anything we saw on that day. The main difference is that you can rest assured that almost nobody would be prosecuted in the aftermath because they were rioting "for a good cause."
