Last night Rachel Maddow pointed out other alarming things Trump has been saying about voting lately. In fact, he’s already got enough of his own people in place to potentially steal the November election.
And before you pooh-pooh this, remember I’m the one who was predicting Trump was planning to steal the 2020 election way before the election, and I came pretty close to he was planning to do it.
There's no precedent. I think that Trump does not plan to bring legal action in any swing states he loses. He's got a flunky in place and that flunky will simply say he has concerns there was fraud. No signature and that state effectively sits out the election. If enough stats do that, the matter is forced into the House of Representatives. Trump wins.
But the USSC has determined that POTUS can not be prosecuted for official acts. If the National Archives determines that a certificate reflects the actual result of a state election and is "official enough" then Harris can announce the result and Republicans would object and it goes to the Senate. If the objection is not sustained, the count by electoral votes continues. This is Trump's 2020 coup attempt in reverse,
That's what Maddow is saying in the video.
The House is something I hadn't considered myself. That's about the only way I could see it happening – something forcing it to the House, where each state gets one vote. It would require a lot of work, and a lot of luck, though.
I believe that if there are 270 blue electoral votes, Harris ends up with a majority, and there's no way to throw it that I know of. But if a red state is required to make it to 270, Republicans will try to use the "Independent State Legislature" excuse to try to prevent the victory, in hopes of throwing it to the house.
Someone at every meeting of these fools should ask for an estimated body count if they're successful. Would they be honest enough to say "Oh, I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed," and give an accurate guess, or just be stupid and say "it'll all be legal, blessed by the SCOTUS!"
The dependency for this scenario is the GOP retains control of the House. The next congress, the 119th, one that is seated after the 2024 election, meets on Jan. 3rd. Certification of the election is Jan 6th. Therefore if Harris wins the democrats MUST take the House in order to be in control of the certification process or of it comes down to the House voting for the president.
I was able to watch the video, and she explains the danger fairly well – far better than I could! Unless I missed something it doesn't require holding a house of Congress.
Right; she was saying eventually it would go to the Supreme Court. Think Bush v. Gore. And I don’t know which scenario is more likely, House or SCOTUS. But the basic plan is to have Trump people in charge of elections refuse to certify, which in theory would cause a few key states to fail to choose a winner. And from there Trump could get the election handed to him, somehow.
I didn't watch the video, I am referring to the fact that if Trump's schemers in the states he's putting in place as electors, MAGA election officials, etc can work the electoral college votes to have Harris and Trump tied, then the House votes to elect the president. Who do you think will get elected if the GOP holds the House?
Please do watch the video; it’s not long. Maddow is saying that the election deniers in charge of elections are simply going to refuse to certify the election, not report a tie. Some of them have pulled this before already. If they can keep the state from certifying the state’s election, then she said it would go to the Supreme Court.
Not quite. The states vote en block – all the members of Texas would vote for the Republican and all the members of New York for the Democrat. The number of members each state has is determined by population (and the population by the census, which is why there's contention over HOW to count people every ten years.)
So it comes back to the rounding for each state – it could come down to the mix of states, just as with the electoral college. What happens in those states with an even number of delegates if they split. Michigan for example has 14 members. What if their delegation after 2024 has 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans?
We need voters to vote blue down ticket, especially in the House, which means nationalizing the perception that the Republican administration of the House has been a circus for two years. Which is true by any measure.
Here's the plot, explained a bit more quickly.
If Harris wins 270+ electors from blue states – no Republican legislature, or governor, to gum up the works, she wins.
What if she wins 290 votes, but, 21 are from red states? Well, Republicans plan to have those red states send no electors at all, leaving Harris at 269 – *not* a majority. Sure, a majority of votes *cast*, but not a majority of electors *appointed*.
Don't worry if you think that's ambiguous – the SCOTUS is Republican, and will rule in favor of Republicans.
Since no candidate has a majority, they'll say, it must go to the House, where it's assumed Republicans will control at least 26 state House of Reps delegations. Those 26 state delegations to the House will install Trump as President, 26 (or more) to 24 (or fewer).
Will this work? Well, it's spelled out in the Constitution. There's nothing about "this is null and void if some cheating (expletives deleted) screw with the count *deliberately* to make this happen," is there?
So that's the basics of the plan. There is a constitutional process by which Trump could declare victory, without winning the EC. It has a lot of moving parts, but, with the SCOTUS sewed up, it would work. Biden couldn't stop it, because the courts aren't under his control.
Why would this happen, now, after over 200 years of peaceful transfer of power?
There are two reasons. First, Republicans control the federal courts, and they think they can get away with it.
Second, Republicans today are the slaveholders and anti-abolitionists of yesterday. Forget whether they think Black people are a different race (some *EMPHATICALLY* do!); they know that you can't turn folks from the Asia-Pacific regions into anti-abolitionists or slavers. Plus, forget Central/South America – geez, do *they* have a long memory about slavers and such!
They're losing the war, badly, and they know this is likely their last chance, even with gerrymandering to the hilt. Four *more* years from now, the demographics will be that much more Republican-hostile.
Now, if Trump were to win, and the Republicans took the Senate, they'd immediately appoint four more SCOTUS judges, expanding the court to 13, with a 10-3 Republican advantage. At that point, they have full control over everything they need at the federal level.
Later, they would learn the lesson of the king who killed the golden-egg laying goose, but they'd blame the problem on "LIE-berals" instead of stupidity.
"I’m the one who was predicting Trump was planning to steal the 2020 election"
Sure, the thing about Stump is that he can't seem to control is his propensity for projection. When he accuses people of being crooked it's because he is crooked and he knows it, when he says his legal woe are political it’s because that is what he tried to do while in office, when he talks about the democrats stealing an election it's because that is what he is planning. So yeah he's going to try it again, this time he doesn't have Speaker Pelosi to deal with so it's going to be a free-for-all in the house when it comes time for certification should Harris win. Strap in it's going to get rough!
I’ve been preaching about the dangers of psychopaths in power for over twenty years now, after going through my own school of hard knocks. Some people get it without needing actual personal experience with one. Others have a “So I was wondering what that the hell that was – I knew one!” kind of epiphany.
But a lot of people seem incorrigible when it comes to fully understanding what they are, even if the P has spent four full years, and then almost four more years, demonstrating their psychopathy on an almost daily basis.
Denial? Hopeful thinking? The belief that all humans can be redeemed? (well, except for autistics and some pro football quarterbacks)
The problem isn’t necessarily with the psychopaths. They’re just gonna do what they’re gonna do, incorrigibly, because there’s no technology currently available to change them. In a better-reasoned world they’d be ostracized the day they proved themselves to the rest of society.
And then there's all the other nutballs who enable and encourage Trump for their own personal ambitions. Are those folks even remotely aware that if Trump so much as suspects any of them to be a threat to his power, or of being disloyal, that they'd be the very first to go?
Of course they do. That's why they're so "loyal".
Trump does nothing in a fair way. You can guess he has a number of plans to steal power as he always does. Rules to a sociopath are only that which you find a way around, not comply with. Rules only apply only to others. There is a pill for every ill but the sociopath is an ill for which there is no remedy but incarceration. Trump is desperate to seize power and he will stop at nothing.
He now projects weird, and not a good kind of weird. He should. It is what is behind the facade. He is really a very weird person. Sociopaths are very competent of hiding what they are up to. Their weakness is, sooner or later, the true person shows. The weird one. The illusion works no more. You join the other really weird people like Jeffery Dalmer and Ted Bundy. Other people who have been discovered with once hidden agendas that came to light. In hindsight they also were quite weird.
To add to what you're saying:
There are rules for fouling in a lot of sports. Soccer's rules are especially bad, which is why, if you accidentally touch toes with another player, they'll show off their Olympic diving skills as they fly away from you, surely MORTALLY WOUNDED.
Well, there's two types of players: those who recognize you might flub a legal tackle, or check, or accidentally run into/over someone, and and that player will nod regretfully to the ref, and take the penalty; and, those who try to foul any time the ref's head is turned, including extra rough tackles/checks/collisions, arguing every penalty "HOW DARE you impugn my HONOR!!!"
Heh. Robert Heinlein had a character say "if anyone mentions their honor, make them pay cash." I agree 100%.
Mike Krzyzewski is a famous basketball coach (Duke) who developed a strategy if Duke was behind in a game in the closing minutes. The Duke player would deliberately foul the other player with a poor free-shot shooting average. The clock stops and the opposing team gets one (or two) points and Duke gets the ball back, and they for for a three-point shot. The ball goes back to the opposing team and Duke fouls again.
Suppose Trump has people embedded in all the swing states, elected officials who can potentially stop the election in that state, particularly if there is the cooperation of the legislature and the governor who might force certification despite the local official failing to certify.
The game shifts to the House, who will elect the president by states. Now, the game could be played by BOTH parties – after the election when the mix of states has been determined, to have your stooge in the state you lost by the popular vote take you out of the electoral college IF YOU WILL WIN with the majority by House membership.
This is entirely anti-democratic in negating the power of the popular vote, and entirely within the rules of the game set out in the Constitution. BUT the advantage is temporary because most voters want elections decided by the majority rather than trickery. So you have to win once by trickery and eliminate the power of elections to overturn your side.
I know no one is reading this post since you have a new (and interesting) one. BTW, I just rewatched the video and it doesn't mention the USSC. Rachel can run long and she's WAY smarter than I am, but I don't see it going there.
But this post presents some interesting aspects of constitutional circumstances beyond the founding fathers' wildest dreams. However, unlike presidential immunity, which the US constitution does not mention, the process for electing a president if neither candidate hits 270 is nailed down tight.
To digress on two points, the 2000 election went to the USSC when Bush sued AND GORE DID NOT DISPUTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. The reason Gore didn't dispute is because the GOP had a majority in the House and that's where the election would have been decided for Bush. Gore rolled the dice and lost.
Regarding the obvious partisan bias of the USSC – there are limits. Looking at presidential immunity, there is precedent in Nixon and Bill Clinton with criminal perjury being settled as he left office. The US Constitution doesn't specifically say. that the president DOES have immunity. Despite precedent, Roberts pulled a decision out of a dark smelly place. He did NOT make a ruling that violated the exact, specific text of the US Constitution.
I tend to doubt that Trump lawyers will take cases to court. A bunch of lawyers have been disbarred for the manure they shoveled onto the judicial system with no evidence or facts. This time, I expect Trump will scream voter fraud but not attempt to prove in court what he has no proof of. Which means appealing the entire election through a dispute of votes in a single district of a swing state probably won't happen and wouldn't work.
Trump could ask for the outcome of the election go directly to the USSC but the Democrats have the text of the Constitution on their side AND the Democrats occupy the WH. I'm not sure Biden would respect an order from the USSC that violates the text of the Constitution. I don't think any lawyer in the DOJ will feel a greater obligation to John Roberts than they do to the US Constitution. I think the generals and admirals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff WOULD throw Joe out on his ear if he violated the Constitution to try to retain power or asked the military to conduct a coup. But the JCS won't support a coup by the Supreme Court, either.
The real situation is unreal, like a bunch of college law school freshmen who have had too much beer on a Friday going, "Yeah, but what if the states refused to certify and the USSC issued an edict?" And we're seriously having that discussion without beer.