Social media users have shared an inaccurate attribution to Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin that indicates he said, if former President Donald Trump wins, Congress won’t certify his election result. Raskin denied making such claims in February; rather a misleading account was circulated online at that time and therefore the false quote circulated across social media is to blame.
Full Story As Election Day neared, an online rumor purporting to come from Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland began circulating without an actual source or source cited – prompting Raskin himself to state in an Nov 5 post on X that it was likely “fabricated.”
“Let folks vote for Donald Trump if that is their choice; however, keep this in mind: We won’t certify his election! Even though he might win, we will ensure he never enters the Oval Office.”
Raskin, who served as lead impeachment manager of President Donald Trump’s impeachment case related to events of January 6, 2021, responded as follows. This fictional quote from Trump is 100% made-up; part of a campaign of right-wing lies intended to undermine our election. Regardless of any misinformation and any attempts by right-wing elements at discrediting it; America will conduct free and fair elections where Congress will certify their winner.”
One version of Raskin’s quote that circulated was similar, except it stated he said Trump “may be elected but we won’t let him be inaugurated.” We tracked back this quote to an Oct 28 podcast episode where Mike Benz, an employee during President Donald Trump’s administration at State, gave his interpretation of something Raskin said in February about an case before the Supreme Court at that time, however his paraphrase missing some context and meaning.
Raskin appeared on a podcast labeled with an August 5, 2024 date but actually hailing from an event held February 17, at Washington D.C. bookstore Politics and Prose. At that point in time, the Supreme Court was considering Donald Trump’s appeal of Colorado state Supreme Court’s ruling citing Section 3, Insurrection Clause 14th Amendment U.S. Constitution that found him disqualified due to Section 3’s Insurrection clause which holds he can never run again for federal office if previously held and “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same or given aid or comfort to enemies thereof”. This clause states he cannot run again under Colorado state jurisdiction as defined under Colorado state statute or appear on Colorado ballot. The insurrection clause states one cannot run under Section 3, Insurrection Clause 14th amendment clause 14th Amendment that states someone can never run again due to having previously held state office oath to support Constitution oath taken insurrection clause states: an individual cannot run under Section 3, Insurrection clause 14th Amendment 14th Amendment 14.21.4 insurrection clause 14th Amendment 14th Amendment provides for holding state or federal office after having previously held state or federal office without supporting Constitution as per 14th Amendment 14th amendment which states: Engaging “in in in rebellion or aiding/support against same, engaged in in rebellion or given aid or comfort to enemies thereof, when holding state/ federal office due to previously holding office and giving aid/comfornment or given aid or comfort/in rebellion sworn an Oa oa. clause allows such as 14th… etc unless allowed, then Constitution clause that prevents; or given aid o o o clause clause says one would not eligible due oa or federal office because one held under 18th amendment 14th Amd or providing aid/com against same or comfort against same; or engaged or comfort against same, against same or giving aid against same to enemies thereof or comfort against same and same by way too late etc or comfort to enemies thereof insurrs thereof”, thus justify or comfort against same, prior oderivable to them before holding office then insurrments which prevented their future holding office “or given aid or comfort to such enemies thereof; by taking part by such Act (14. for 20 24 election ballot to appear 20 24 ballot”. clause prohibiting out and taking Oa o/B clause applies” until held against it could also disqualified for holding future election ballot!).. clause prohibited or other than having previously holding office by taking an Oa o/etc etc when holding office otherwise than, such given. o against same. etc o so etc insurcs held against same; [such”., before holding federal/e /re insur o.
State Court found that President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection based on his actions during an attack by supporters on Jan 6, 2021 against the Capitol, seeking to derail certification of 2020 electoral votes and disrupt certification processes. At the time of U.S. Supreme Court case hearings in 2021, numerous challenges had already been filed to remove him from ballot.
At a bookstore event held in February, Raskin voiced concerns over what might happen if U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling states it is up to Congress in 2025 (January 5 or 6, according to some accounts), to disqualify Trump during counting of electoral college votes – something she heard mentioned during oral argument hearing. Raskin concluded by noting this could potentially spark “civil war-like battles across America.
The podcast didn’t show Raskin speaking from that clip but rather showed him again at another event later in discussing what “can be written into the Constitution can slip away very quickly”, discussing what action could be taken by courts as a response.
Raskin, Feb 7: A prime example is right before our very eyes: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is currently disappearing like magic with every ruling made against it by certain justices, even though its purpose and intent cannot be clearer. They want Congress to decide and on January 6, 2025 we need bodyguards because these justices who only consider limited cases per year but possess huge staffs with excellent security simply refuse to perform their roles and interpret what the great 14th Amendment entails.
On March 4 of that year, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Colorado vs Trump that Colorado could not remove him from the ballot; majority opinion held that enforcement of Section 3 rests with Congress rather than states; thus requiring legislation from them in order to enforce insurrection clause and not as Raskin had predicted at bookstore, when electoral votes are certified on Jan 6.
On the day of Trump’s ruling, Raskin told Axios he would draft legislation so Congress would “act”. Unfortunately, neither house of congress acted; instead Trump appeared on ballot and became their presidential nominee.
Benz claimed in his podcast that Trump will be disqualified under 14th Amendment rules.
Raskin did not address these comments recently and we emailed his office asking about them; unfortunately we have received no reply yet.
Raskin told Axios last month that, had Donald Trump won in an open, honest election with no impediments to participation or influence, then we would accept his victory without question. Instead, Raskin stated he believes Trump is doing whatever possible to interfere with this process, whether by manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska, rigged voting results in Georgia or creating other impediments to participation or making threats of other kinds against democratically-elected officials.
On Nov. 2, Congressman McGovern stated in an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher: “So when I say we support free and fair elections, no, they won’t steal them – in states, in DOJ offices or with any election official across America – but instead will honor any free election that occurs.”
Raskin’s office told us and others in an email sent on November 5, that Raskin “has always remained committed to overseeing an election with free and fair results,” in line with what had been stated previously on viral claims against Trump’s election results.
Editor’s note: FACTCHECK.org does not accept advertising; instead we rely on grants and individual donations like yourself for support. Please consider giving. Donations by credit card may be made via our “Donate” page; for check donations send your donation directly to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center 202 South 36th Street Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19104.
Raskin, Jamie (@RepRaskin), stated “this fictional quote is completely false and part of an ongoing campaign of right-wing lies intended to undermine our election.” Regardless, America will hold free and fair elections that Congress will certify the winner.” X. 5 Nov 2024.
“LarryDJonesJr tweeted out, ‘Jamie Raskin says it should be allowed for people to vote for Donald Trump if that is their preference; however, his election won’t be certified; even though he might win we will ensure he never steps foot into the Oval Office’.” X. 4 Nov 2024.
Jamie Raskin (@realTrumpNewsX). On 31 Oct 2024. “Jamie Raskin said people may vote for Donald Trump but we will not certify the election, thus disallowing any possibility for his inauguration as President X.” X. 31 Oct 2024.
PBD Podcast. YouTube.com, 28 October 2024.
Constitution Annotated. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights. Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office. Constitution.congress.gov Accessed 6 Nov 2024
Supreme Court of Colorado Case No 23SA300 on 19 Dec 2023.
Gamio, Lazaro et.al. “Tracking Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot,” New York Times; updated 4 Mar 2024
Politics and Prose. “Rick Hasen — A Real Right to Vote with Representative Jamie Raskin and Sherrilyn Ifill on YouTube”. 17 February 2024.
Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Remove Donald Trump From Ballot To Repress Insurrection”. SCOTUSblog 4 Mar 2024.
Donald J. Trump vs Norma Anderson. No 23-719. Supreme Court of the United States. 4 March 2024.
Solender, Andrew. “Scoop: Top Democratic Official Working on Bill In Response To Trump Ballot Ruling”. Axios News Network 4 March 2024.
Solender, Andrew. “Some top Dems Reject Certifying Trump Win,” Axios (10 October 2024).
Raskin, Jamie. HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.” Grabien.com. 2 November 2024.
