![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/5BC42368-94DC-4688-A8DC-84C52C579BDC-600x334.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nBy Paul Ingrassia
\nGATEWAY PUNDIT<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Uniparty is quietly scheming (again) to rig the system and prevent President Trump from ever becoming President.\u00a0 This scheme involves a two-part strategy: using a combination of strategically planned retirements of Republican House members, coupled with the passage of carefully tailored legislation to remove President Trump from the ballot on bogus Insurrection grounds that would likely pass muster with moderate justices on the Supreme Court, like John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who prefer to avoid deciding on \u201ccontroversial\u201d legal questions and risk being seen in a bad light by their liberal peers.<\/p>\n
The fact that\u00a0over a\u00a0dozen<\/em>\u00a0House Republicans<\/a>\u00a0have recently announced their early retirement, or their intention to not seek re-election, should raise alarm bells for everyone, because these decisions are not by happenstance.\u00a0 They are coordinated and\u00a0serve the specific purpose to keep President Trump off the ballot<\/strong>.\u00a0 As their attempts at lawfare appear to be falling apart one-by-one, from the debacle in Georgia involving\u00a0Fani Willis\u2019s rendezvous with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade<\/a>, to the\u00a0kangaroo show trials in NYC<\/a>, with petty judges and prosecutors such as Letitia James, Arthur Engoron, and Juan Merchan, being exposed for the radical, far-left operators they are \u2013 President Trump\u2019s political enemies are getting increasingly desperate, and as a result of that desperation, are strategizing to now switch control of the House of Representatives before election day.\u00a0 If they manage to pull off that feat, which is becoming increasingly likely with a diminishing House Republican majority, the product of intra-party squabbling and general incompetence of Republican leadership, and Democrats retake control, President Trump\u2019s enemies will be able to more easily pass legislation that would disqualify him from the ballot.\u00a0 This is because if the House flips to Democrat hands and Speaker Hakeem Jeffries takes the reins, he will be able to coordinate with Chuck Schumer in the Senate more easily, who already controls a majority in the upper chamber.\u00a0 At least up until the November election, there will be no divided government: Democrats will have majorities in both congressional chambers, plus the White House.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, the House, Senate, and White House can collude to pass legislation that would exclude President Trump from the ballot<\/strong>\u00a0because, according to their absurd construction, Section 3 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows them to do so.<\/p>\n This is why the early-announced retirements of House members like Mike Gallagher (WI) and Ken Buck (CO), and the forced ouster of former Congressman George Santos (NY), have received (rightful) criticism from the MAGA movement, including some of the most stridently pro-Trump congresspersons, like\u00a0Marjorie Taylor Greene<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Lauren Boebert<\/a>.\u00a0 The Mike Gallagher case is particularly illustrative of RINO subversion \u2013 and MTG was no-holds-barred in her criticism of the move.\u00a0 Gallagher, rather than step down immediately, announced that he would delay his retirement until April 19th<\/sup>.\u00a0 Under Wisconsin law, special elections to fill seat vacancies can only occur up until the second Tuesday in April \u2013 after which point, the law requires the seat remain vacant through the November election.\u00a0 Thus, if Gallagher postpones his retirement until the 19th<\/sup>, after the second Tuesday in April, there will be no special election: Republicans will simply have to accept losing another House seat.\u00a0 Democrats will be one seat closer to reclaiming majority control.\u00a0 Gallagher\u2019s refusal to step down before the second Tuesday in April makes no sense whatsoever: it can only be explained as an act of deliberate sabotage.\u00a0 MTG took notice.\u00a0 On March 23rd<\/sup>, she\u00a0posted<\/a> that Gallagher \u201cshould be expelled if he refuses to leave immediately,\u201d recognizing how his delay could ultimately cost Republicans the House majority.<\/p>\n It is no coincidence that the same forces so deeply critical of George Santos\u2019 ouster late last year are the ones most vocal about the news of these early retirements.\u00a0 They observe the writing on the wall: the desire is to keep President Trump off the ballot \u2013 and out of office.\u00a0 Providing further support for this theory is the fact that of the 14 or so members that have announced early retirements, at least six of them have received significant funds from notorious anti-Trump megadonor, Paul Singer: Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Patrick McHenry, Drew Ferguson, Kay Granger, Blaine Luetkemeyer, and Greg Pence.\u00a0 Singer, as smartly reported by investigative journalist Troy Smith, and veteran political operative,\u00a0Roger Stone<\/a>, also donated a\u00a0whopping $5,000,000 to Nikki Haley\u2019s failed presidential bid<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 which marked another attempt by the deep state to derail President Trump in his tracks.<\/p>\n Singer\u2019s support for anti-Trump, RINO candidates has a well-documented and extensive history.\u00a0 The billionaire has been unsuccessfully trying to thwart the President ever since he descended the Trump Tower escalator: in 2016, Singer poured over $2.5 million into Marco Rubio\u2019s failed presidential campaign.\u00a0 Singer also supported research into the universally discredited, bogus Steele Dossier after Trump was elected to the presidency, and has been actively trying to stop the 45th<\/sup>\u00a0President in his tracks ever since.<\/p>\n What Singer and his RINO allies \u2013 and other anti-Trump interest groups in the DC Swamp \u2013 are attempting to accomplish is quite blatant: push enough Republicans into early retirement so as to give Democrats control of the House before the November election.\u00a0 The timing is critical: the reason Democrats need to retake control before November is to ensure enough Supreme Court justices will rubber stamp any legislation that might prevent President Trump from getting on the ballot on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.<\/p>\n But, you might be thinking, did not the Supreme Court already rule, in a unanimous (per curiam<\/em>\u00a0in Court-speak) judgment, that Colorado\u2019s Secretary of State could not do exactly that in the recent decision,\u00a0Trump v. Anderson<\/em><\/a>?\u00a0 Not exactly.<\/p>\n One must pick apart the decision with a fine-tooth comb, but the attentive reader will find the language of the Court rather worrisome.\u00a0 This is particularly true for the three liberal justices: Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, who wrote a separate concurrence \u2013 agreeing with the Court\u2019s majority \u201conly in the judgment.\u201d\u00a0 Adding further worry is the separate concurrence of Justice Barrett, who also wrote her own 1-page judgment, agreeing with the majority for \u201cParts I and II-B\u201d of the opinion, while also stating her belief that the five justices who fully signed onto the majority went too far.<\/p>\n In simple terms, the Court was only unanimous on the threshold issue \u2013 that Colorado\u2019s Secretary of State could not have the power to unilaterally remove President Trump from the ballot.\u00a0 But agreement ends there.\u00a0 Should the House switch hands, and a Democrat-controlled Congress passes enforcement legislation, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to remove President Trump from the ballot, it is very likely that at least 3 justices will uphold that legislation.\u00a0 And, based on the language of her decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett would be a tossup \u2013 meaning she can potentially side with her liberal colleagues.\u00a0 If she winds up siding with the Court\u2019s three liberals, it will only require one other justice \u2013 like John Roberts or Brett Kavanaugh, who have been known to be soft on politically hot-button issues, to jump ship.\u00a0 The fact that none of the judges were willing to rule on whether President Trump actually engaged in Insurrection on January 6th<\/sup>, 2021, is also troubling \u2013 because it suggests that the Court would rather remain \u201cabove politics,\u201d rather than risking embroiling itself in a hugely important political controversy, providing clarity in the law, even if it meant alienating radical Leftists, who frequently resort to fear mongering, bullying, and even violent threats to get what they want out of squishy justices.<\/p>\n While it is true that the Court paid some consideration to the prospect of the House switching hands before the election and passing legislation to exclude President Trump from the ballot, it did not go far enough.\u00a0 Sure, the Court took off the table the idea that Congress could pass legislation between Election Day and Inauguration Day, when the result of the 2024 election is presumably already known, to prevent the duly elected president from taking office.\u00a0 This language clearly has President Trump in mind and is effectively stating that if Democrats have control of Congress \u2013 and if President Trump is re-elected \u2013 they cannot attempt to ram through last-minute legislation to prevent him from taking office on alleged Fourteenth Amendment grounds, in a last-ditch attempt to block him out of the presidency.<\/p>\n Although that appears sensible on its face, already four justices \u2013 the three liberals and Justice Barrett \u2013 clearly signaled that they would not, at least at this point, be comfortable taking that option off the table.\u00a0 In short, four justices have suggested that they might uphold a last-minute legislative effort by a Democrat-controlled Congress to oust President Trump\u00a0even after he had already been re-elected<\/em>.\u00a0 If that is true, then certainly the four would support enforcement legislation to remove President Trump from the ballot while he was still Candidate Trump.\u00a0 They would likely do this despite the safety measures included in the majority\u2019s opinion to prevent congressional legislation from going too far \u2013 such as the language from the opinion that stipulates for \u201c\u2018congruence and proportionality\u2019 between preventing or remedying [the alleged misconduct] \u2018and the means adopted to that end.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n How President Trump Might Stop RINO Attempts To Knock Him Off The Ballot Before It\u2019s Too Late<\/strong><\/p>\n So, what now?<\/p>\n Well, the first \u2013 and likely most important step \u2013 in planning a counter-strategy, is to be aware of the problem.\u00a0 This piece goes a long way towards spelling out a potential issue; by highlighting Republican chicaneries in the House \u2013 and calling it out in its tracks, such as what MTG did with Gallagher, that could well go a long way towards subduing something that has the potential to blossom into a 5-alarm fire.<\/p>\n If President Trump, for example, calls out Mike Gallagher\u2019s antics in their path \u2013 that might force him to step down early, and not wait until beyond the deadline to give Democrats another seat.\u00a0 Putting a national spotlight on the issue, by way of President Trump and his campaign, might also prevent other would-be House RINO turncoat members from pulling off a similar trick \u2013 and might also put pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson to reprimand, or potentially even expel, members that do not fall in lockstep.\u00a0 (And if Mike Johnson proves incapable of stopping this plot in its tracks, then another motion to vacate \u2013\u00a0of the kind MTG proposed just recently<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 might be just what the doctor ordered.)<\/p>\n As a matter of policy, if, God forbid, House Republican antics continue, and they wind up losing control over the lower chamber to the Democrats, President Trump\u00a0can and should coordinate with 41 Senators<\/strong>, the number needed to\u00a0prevent cloture of a filibuster<\/a>,\u00a0to ensure blockage of any would-be Insurrection legislation that gets passed<\/strong>.\u00a0 This can be done, but it will involve strategic planning with sympathetic Republican ears in the Senate \u2013 currently, Democrats hold onto a slim 51-49 seat majority in the Senate and are poised to lose control of the upper chamber in this November\u2019s election cycle due to a highly favorable Republican map.<\/p>\n Accordingly, if President Trump and his team can coordinate with enough Republicans to block cloture \u2013 they can prevent any Insurrection legislation from being passed.\u00a0 Current rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster, so Republicans can afford to lose eight of their members, and still prevent any such legislation from going to Joe Biden\u2019s desk.\u00a0 And while it is true that if ever such legislation were passed, the Supreme Court would almost certainly automatically review it for its constitutionality, given how high-pressure the situation will be \u2013 and other factors that are outside anyone\u2019s control, such as the circumstances in which such legislation is passed \u2013 it is best to prevent such a dire scenario from occurring ahead of time, in its tracks, rather than leave it up to the Supreme Court, a wildcard, to decide when it might already be too late.<\/p>\n