They have an interesting analysis of the situation.
Section 2 describes the ratification procedure, which was fulfilled on Feb. 27, 1951. For the textualists among our readers, please note that the Amendment is about being elected to the presidency, not about serving as president
Consecutive Terms: Trump could argue before the Supreme Court that the Twenty-Second Amendment, which was approved by Congress in 1947, was adopted in response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt being elected four times in a row, so it applies only to consecutive terms and thus his first term doesn't count. There is some precedent in barring consecutive terms in the states. Virginia, for example, bars governors from serving two consecutive terms, but does not limit the total number of terms they may serve. It would ultimately be up to the Supreme Court, stocked with five or six Trump appointees, to rule on this and they could well agree with Trump.
They also point out that there is no enabling legislation, which is what the corrupt 6 ruled was necessary to prevent someone from running for federal office if they had participated in an insurrection. I can see them pulling this stunt again.
Now, before someone goes and reports this as right wing nonsense, I should point out that 1) the guys who run Electoral-Vote.com are far from being right wingers, nor are they far left: The site is well run, with thoughtful analysis of political news and polls, and 2) while this is speculation designed to cause the reader to think outside the box, which is
exactly what Cantaloupe Caligula the Corpulents people (nutters from The Federalist Society, etc), will do. If they think they can pull off something like this, they wont hesitate to take to all the way to the SCOTUS. And I wont bet on the odds of an unfavorable ruling against Caligula. In the immunity case, I was sure (and so was pretty much any serious legal scholar) that theyd follow the ruling from the DC Court of Appeals and uphold it, or toss the suit. We all know how that went.