This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A joint session of Congress on Monday adopted the Electoral College landslide victory of President-elect Donald Trump, who is to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, and the pro forma vote recitation lacked any of the conspiratorial theories that Democrats had launched to threaten the action.

The vote was 312 for Trump, to 226 for Kamala Harris, and there wasn't even a whisper of protest from Democrats, who routinely have objected in past years to GOP vote counts.

Even more significant, however, was the complete silence from multiple Democrats who have complained, publicly, that it was up to Congress to stop Trump from being president, as Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Calif., had insisted.

The quick and routine vote adoption was in contrast to the chaos from four years earlier, when some 1,500 people, doubting the integrity of the 2020 vote count, disrupted Congress, forcing the final vote for Joe Biden to be delayed until the late night hours.

Since then, hundreds were charged or jailed, some for counts as serious as trespassing. Trump has promised to pardon "many" of those when he takes office. And critics of the Democrat lawfare agenda against Trump over the past four years have called for investigations of, and criminal charges against, those who led that lawfare.

Significant was the fact that public calls for extremism on the part of Democrats fell flat.

It was the Washington Stand that explained in a column that one scheme was proposed by lawyers Evan Davis and David Schulte, who wanted Democrats to "take a stand" against Trump.

They based their demands on their assumption of Trump's "guilt" of "insurrection."

The commentary explained their plan was based on "their ahistorical claims and flakey reading of the 14th Amendment's Section 3."

"They contend that Trump needs a two-thirds vote of Congress to overcome his 'disability' regardless of receiving 312 electoral votes to 226 electoral votes for Kamala Harris and 77,270,000 popular votes to 74,984,000 for Harris! Sorry counselors. As Jimmy Stewart said in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' 'Forget it, fellas … [that] … is a lot of hooey,'" the column said.

"Democrats decided on the 14th Amendment Trump disqualification fantasy ploy after losing six state and federal court efforts with the misreporting 'talents' of the leftist disinformation media to kick Trump off 2024 election ballots or to prevent him from getting on," it continued, "Davis and Schulte cite the Trump impeachment trial for 'incitement of insurrection' in which the attorneys bizarrely claim that the senators did 'provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office.' Huh?"

It added, "What is a Senate 'vote of a majority' for conviction? The official U.S. Senate record has a different view on the case outcome found at Congress.gov which reports that: 'The Senate adjudges that Donald John Trump, former President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the Article of Impeachment by Yea-Nay Vote. 57-43. Record Vote Number: 59.' For the benefit of these elite law school attorneys, when the U.S. Senate says Trump is not guilty it means he is cleared of the charges, i.e., Trump is not guilty."

But that wasn't the only ideology that was created against Trump.

"The second insurrection clause effort these hope-beyond-hope attorneys cling to in order to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidency occurred in a state challenge to the placement of Trump's name on the Colorado ballot for president where the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled against Trump even being allowed to have his name on the presidential ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson (No. 23–719, 3/4/2024) unanimously 'reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that had held Trump to be ineligible for the office of president under Section 3 on the grounds that he had engaged in insurrection and, therefore, could not be listed on the Colorado presidential primary ballot.'"

The Stand explained the two lawyers "want newly-elected Democratic members of Congress" to convert the joint session of Congress "into an ad hoc legal circus hard to distinguish from sedition to disqualify a sufficient number of state electoral votes because of their tortured misunderstanding of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment so that by default, Kamala Harris would be the president!"

They had wanted that to happen through Democrat petitions to "challenge" votes from GOP states.

The commentary explained there were other problems with the scheme, including also that educated readings of the 14th Amendment mean that the president and vice president are excluded from coverage.

Raskin's comment:

And one from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:

A survey even purported to show many Americans had adopted the ideology: