This is news to the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire, both of which I belong to—as a lawyer—and to which I pay dues. And I ran one of the most popular election news websites in the U.S. in the mid-2000s—up to 25,000 visitors/day.
https://twitter.com/john__rosevear/status/1324437479517204480
NOTE1/ What folks are confused about is the "November Nightmare" scenario Trump/his team are trying to engineer right now. For some reason, people think I said it was legal. I didn't—and it isn't. What I've said is they believe they can convince courts to defer to Congress on it.
NOTE2/ Also, Mark Levin—and for that matter, Max Kennerly—were discussing ex post elector rule changes; I wasn't and haven't. You can't change election laws after the fact and expect a court to uphold it. I discussed what I'm actually concerned about here:
NOTE3/ For those who seek a summary: my worry was that state elections officials could refuse to certify a state's count under pressure from Trump, enabling a "dueling elector" scenario. I never said—nor would I ever—that state legislatures can pick whoever they want as electors.
NOTE4/ I don't know who it was, but in the game of "Telephone" that is Twitter someone falsely said I consider Mark Levin's proposed tactic—ex post election-law changes—legally plausible. I don't—it isn't. Levin is imperfectly summarizing one component of a larger Trump strategy.
NOTE5/ The "dueling elector" scenario has reportedly been discussed at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, including members of Congress. It's a real fear. Though again, (a) that *doesn't mean it's legal*, (b) that doesn't mean that Mark Levin's tweet was a summary of it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
