We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Conservatives pushed back with humor and sometimes even anger after The Hill published an “insurrection-y” op-ed Thursday calling for Congress to reject President-elect Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency.

“Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now,” the title of the outrageous piece reads.

In the piece, New York lawyer Evan Davis and Chicago investment banker David Schulte claimed Trump is an “oath-breaking insurrectionist” who’s “ineligible to be president.”

It’s a hilarious claim for the fact that one, it’s clearly not true, two, it’s a conspiracy theory that you usually only see the most fringe lunatics on social media spout, and three, the column is itself a form of insurrection.

Indeed, responding to the silly piece, a number of critics accused Davis, Schulte, and even The Hill of being the “real insurrectionists.”

Yet Davis and Schulte, both of whom worked at their respective college’s newspaper (go figure), think their line of thinking is perfectly sane.

In fact, the two defended their warped thesis by citing Trump’s second impeachment, a Colorado court that claimed Trump “engaged in insurrection,” and the bogus Jan. 6th committee’s disputed findings.

“The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution,” the duo wrote. “In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have.”

“While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant ‘Hang Mike Pence,’” they continued.

The claim that the single-day Jan. 6th riot was an “insurrection” also prompted pushback and mockery:

What do they propose that Congress — well, congressional Democrats, to be exact — do about this? Use the Electoral Count Act to disqualify Trump’s Electoral College votes. Really…

“The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not ‘regularly given,’” they explained.

“A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words ‘not regularly given.’ Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth, and 14 years residency in the United States,” they added.

“To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president,” they continued.

Just like that, huh?

Responding to the silly piece, many critics mocked Davis, Schulte, and The Hill for trying to “cope” their way out of President-elect Trump’s otherwise decisive presidential election victory.

Look:

Vivek Saxena
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.