This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
GOP presidential nominee President Donald Trump is seeking the White House in the November election and has made clear his intention is to win the race.
But his opponent now apparently is Kamala Harris, instead of incumbent Joe Biden, who had promised for years that he would seek another term. And he had been doing that actively until he wasn't.
His poor performance in a debate with Trump, along with his multiple public displays of cognitive decline, preceded his abrupt announcement that he was dropping out.
But how it happened makes the Democrats look bad, Trump said.
According to a report by the Daily Signal, he said, "I'm no Biden fan, but I'll tell you what, from a constitutional standpoint, from any standpoint, they took the presidency away."
He charged that powerful Democrats literally decided to throw Biden out, and he was pushed out of the race.
"People were saying he lost the debate. I don't know that that is true necessarily. But whether he could win or he couldn't win, he had the right to run. And they took it away. They said they were going to use the 25th Amendment. They were going to hit him hard. Either we can do it the nice way or do it the hard way. And he said alright. What they've done is pretty incredible."
Actually, Biden already had accumulated commitments from enough delegates to the party convention coming up in a few days that he would have won the nomination.
The report explained, "Biden has said he left the race voluntarily to pass the torch to Harris. However, a recent story by Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh said that leading Democrats threatened to forcefully remove Biden through the 25th Amendment if he did not drop out."
Further, Trump said no matter the winner, he expects a peaceful transfer of power following the November election.
The report noted that was an apparent reference to the Capitol riot in 2021, when protesters entered the Capitol to protest the certification of Joe Biden's election and some got out of hand, vandalizing and more.
"Of course there will be a peaceful transfer, and there was last time, and there will be a peaceful transfer. I just hope we're gonna have honest elections. That's all," he said.
Biden, however, was not in agreement on that issue.
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?
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."
