Just putting this on your radar since he’s promising to elaborate on his argument tonight on “Hannity.” If, that is, he’s serious about it.

Is he serious about it? He fancies himself a bit of a jokester. What could be funnier than the new campaign chairman for a sitting president insisting there’s a loophole in the 22nd Amendment?

I think he’s serious and probably views this as little more than a cheap way to ingratiate himself to his patron. Nothing would make Trump happier than being told by a toady that he should rightly rule for life — or at least until his early 80s, which is how old he’d be when his third term ended. There’ll probably be some semi-earnest push on Fox News to mainstream that idea at some point during Trump’s second term, assuming he wins next fall. Huck’s just proving that, in a crowd of cultists and cronies, he stands out in his willingness to push the envelope in the president’s favor. Even if that means arguing that part of the Constitution itself rightly shouldn’t apply to him.

He’ll probably end up as Attorney General.

I'll be on @seanhannity 2nite @FoxNews at 9pm ET and will explain how @realDonaldTrump will be eligible for a 3rd term due to the illegal attempts by Comey, Dems, and media , et al attempting to oust him as @POTUS so that's why I was named to head up the 2024 re-election. — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) December 12, 2019

Where’d he get this idea, anyway? It rang a bell for me: Remember that WSJ op-ed from October analogizing impeachment to a challenge flag in pro football? The author, William Mattox, argued that we need to do more to deter dubious partisan-driven impeachments and found inspiration in how the NFL handles challenges. In football, you’re allowed to demand that a questionable call be reviewed — but if the call stands, you lose a timeout. You’ve got skin in the game, in other words, an efficient way to discourage teams from trivial time-wasting challenges. Mattox wants impeachment to operate the same way by making the president eligible for an additional term if he’s impeached but the Senate fails to remove him. If Pelosi knew that the price of Trump being acquitted by the Senate was putting him back on the ballot in 2024, would she dare have proceeded?

My full response to that op-ed is here, but it suffices to say for now that one of the major themes on the blog this week is that Democrats *do* have skin in the game. There are dozens of House Democrats from swing districts thinking hard right now about how to vote on impeachment because they’ve seen how weak the polling is and know they’re at risk of a backlash next fall. The price of this gambit may be a new House Republican majority next year, which would be a steep price to pay for Democrats if the GOP retains the White House and Senate. Bottom line, though: Even Mattox doesn’t suggest that the law currently entitles Trump to run for a third term if impeachment fails. His argument is prospective, that we should pass a constitutional amendment to raise the cost of future impeachments — which isn’t an altogether bad idea considering the appetite for future impeachments.

Huck, however, seems to be speaking in the present, hinting that the law as it stands might allow this. And Hannity is apparently eager to give him a platform for this idea. I’m tempted to predict that it would poll badly even among Republicans but nothing surprises me anymore. Either way, worth watching tonight at 9.

In lieu of an exit question, here’s proof that it’s not just Trump’s close allies in Washington who are busy sniffing glue lately. “Da Nang Dick” Blumenthal has somehow convinced himself, or is at least trying to convince others, that there may be as many as 10 Senate Republicans willing to remove Trump from office. In reality there are two, Romney and Murkowski, and I doubt either of them will be willing to take that plunge knowing that there may be just as many Democratic votes to acquit the president. If not more.