Trump Impeachment Manager Hatches New Plan To Stop Trump - Reveals The Evil Details

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and it is unbelievable but

the Democrats have hatched yet another plan to take Trump off the ballot. These people are so

terrified of you actually voting. They talk about they want to save democracy. We're going to save

democracy by removing your choices. They don't want to save democracy. They want to save the

Democrat party and this plan this plan unfortunately could work. Before we get started

please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe and if you're new to Facebook make

sure you smash that subscribe button. You'll get notified every single time we have a new video

So one of Trump's impeachment managers Jamie Raskin spoke to CNN and he said they're planning

they're pushing right now the Democrats this legislation that would basically declare Trump

an insurrectionist and ban him from the ballot and of course it's not going to work while

Republicans are in control of the House but here's what you have to worry about and Sonny Austin

talked about it on The View. If Trump were to win the presidency but Democrats win the House

and they quickly pass this or don't even pass it just refuse to certify the presidential election

then what? They have to certify it. If Democrats refuse to certify the votes for Trump

now you have a real insurrection. Now you have a real account of people trying to undo the will

of the people and create their own thing and then things could get really really freaky

I really want your guys opinions on this so watch this video and then let me know when you like

comment, share, and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys

God bless you. Take care everybody. In the meantime I want to bring in Democratic

Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland who served on the January 6th select committee

is a former professor of constitutional law among many other things. Congressman thank you so much

for joining me. I want to start by making sure our viewers know that you were one of the early

voices pushing the notion that the 14th amendment could keep Donald Trump off the ballot and I want

them and you to listen to something that you told me in August. We've been saying all along that section 3 of the 14th amendment presents a clear and unequivocal

statement that anyone who has sworn an oath of office and by the way not just a president but

members of congress and others who hold federal office who engage in insurrection or rebellion

having sworn an oath to uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic can never

serve again in federal or state office. Donald Trump is disqualified. So congressman now that you've read the supreme court decision which effectively says that they

don't agree with that argument what's your response? Well the court didn't exactly disagree

with it they just said that they're not the ones to figure it out. It's not going to be a matter

for judicial resolution under section 3 of the 14th amendment but it's up to congress

to enforce it. You know I disagree with that interpretation just because the other parts of

the 14th amendment are self-executing. People can go to court and say that something violates equal

protection even if there's not a federal statute that allows them to do that but in any event

the supreme court punted and said it's up to congress to act and so I am working with a number

of my colleagues including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to revive legislation

that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection

is disqualified by section 3 of the 14th amendment and the house of representatives already impeached

Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it. So the house has already pronounced

upon that and there was also a 57 to 43 vote in the senate. The question is whether speaker Mike

Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor of the house. A big question I'm going to get to

what congress can maybe in from your perspective there's a should and then there's a can which I'm

going to get to in one second but just looking again at this decision today on page 12 of the

decision uh the justices said that the patchwork that would likely result from state enforcement

would sever the direct link that the framers found so critical between the national government

and the people of the United States as a whole. What do you think about that? Well that's just a

well I think that's just a reflection of the existing electoral system patchwork that we've got

There are some presidential candidates who've been able to get on the ballot in some states and not

other states in some states it's very difficult for an independent or a green party or a

libertarian to get on the ballot in other states it's much easier to get on so that patchwork

already exists that's just a reflection of existing electoral federal