This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden and Democrats long have claimed that it was an insurrection in January 2021 when Biden was installed in the White House over the protests of many who thought the election was irretrievably tainted.

And they've long blamed President Donald Trump, his supporters, and in fact all Republicans, for that less-than-smooth week in Washington.

Now Biden has admitted that if Trump wins in November, there won't be any peaceful transfer either.

In an interview to be released this coming weekend, with CBS' Robert Costa, he was asked, "Are you confident that there will be a peaceful transfer of power in January 2025?"

Biden said, "If Trump wins, no, I'm not confident at all."

Then he changed his mind, and added, "I mean if Trump loses, I'm not confident at all. He means what he says. We don't take him seriously. He means it, all the stuff about, 'If we lose, there'll be a bloodbath, it'll have to be a stolen election.'

"Look what they're trying to do now in the local election districts where people count the votes, or putting people in place in states that they're going to count the votes, right?"

Biden's response actually didn't make much sense either time, as under the first scenario he would be accusing Democrats of failing to let there be a peaceful transfer. Under the second scenario, if Trump loses and Democrats win, would there then be a violent transfer from the Biden-Harris camp to the Harris-Walz camp?

An online report pointed out that, "Biden said the quiet part out loud before correcting himself."

WND reported earlier that Biden supporter U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., promised there would be "civil war" conditions if Trump wins, as he would try to have the GOP nominee declared ineligible to hold office.

He gave the impression he was planning an "insurrection."

That would be his plans to have Congress deny Trump the presidency should he win in November.

He explained his agenda:

What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly and the greatest example going on right now before our eye is Section 3 of the 14th amendment which they're just disappearing with the magic wand as if it doesn't exist even though it could not be clearer what it's stating.

And so they want to kick it to Congress.

So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because denying justice is not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at each year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job.

His argument stems from his own interpretation of that section, which states "no person can hold certain offices under the United States or any state if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to its enemies."

He has claimed repeatedly that Trump, because others rioted on Jan. 6, 2021, is ineligible for office.

Of course, Trump never has been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. Congress tried twice to impeach and remove him, including once after he already was out of office. And Congress failed both times.

Nonetheless, Raskin has adopted his own interpretation of that provision and insists on its application, to his satisfaction. Raskin is not the only member of Congress who apparently believes that it is within their power to determine a president guilty of a constitutional violation, as Pelosi's partisan January 6 committee largely spent all of its time and millions of tax dollars trying to assemble a storyline that portrayed Trump as guilty of something on that day when a protest turned into a riot.

Online commenters showed that Raskin's arguments were not being considered seriously.

"Raskin has a few missing screws!" said one. Another added, "I also know Raskin is a complete moron that nobody takes seriously as he talks out of his *** more than he talks out of his mouth."

While Democrats often talk about Trump and Republicans and conservatives and January 6 and insurrection, that action by definition is an organized plan to usurp a government, take over its leadership, is economy, its military, its foreign relations and much, much more, none of which was attempted or even planned that day.

Further, without a solid majority of Democrats in Congress, Raskin's agenda likely would not even make it out of committee.