A big legal firm dropping this case is a good sign. But always a warning as to how dirty it is. I finally figured out how Republican are planning to keep Trump in office, no matter the popular vote. [thread]
reuters.com/article/us-usa…
reuters.com/article/us-usa…
I didn't invent this theory. I just didn't understand it till this I heard this podcast last night (which was from _before_ the election). At about ~21 minutes. "Counting Votes" presents a Pennsylvania scenario that is, "in the realm of crazy scenarios." trumpconlaw.com/46-counting-vo…
It's playing out now. It's also laid out is this story. And Pennsylvania is key. politico.com/news/2020/11/1…
Depends on 1) electoral chaos in Penna [check] 2) a State Legislature having a dispute with the State Court over a presidential election [check], 3) The state legislature picking the electors for Trump *regardless* of popular vote, 4) the Supreme Court saying, "that's cool."
Kavanaugh and others justices have made it clear they believe state legislators have almost total power when it comes to presidential elections. State courts, they say, are limited in extending voting rights _even if they rely on state law_ *if* the state legislator disagrees.
Article II(1)2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
In other words the legislature could say, "It doesn't matter what the state court or people say, it's unconstitutional to interfere with our right." Perhaps.
In other words the legislature could say, "It doesn't matter what the state court or people say, it's unconstitutional to interfere with our right." Perhaps.
From 26min:20sec (this was from before the election): "What if Trump just said 'the vote count is a fraud.' Could a state legislator say things are so disputed, let's just ignore the popular vote and award the electors how we want?..." trumpconlaw.com/46-counting-vo…
"Maybe that sounds crazy... And no state in modern times has ever done this. But it's at least possible to read the constitution to allow for this. Certainly there would be lawsuits, but this is in the realm of crazy scenarios."
The Republican hoped for a source of conflict, so they created one. The specifics aren't the real point, but here that the Penna state legislature said mail votes received after election day should not count. The State Court disagreed.
Of course ideally this would have depended on those votes being decisive, and they're not. (They've been kept separate, just in case). So the whole thing (hopefully) becomes mute. And with the other states going for Biden, it may not matter anyway. But...
The Republican Pennsylvania legislature could still simply say, "To hell with the popular vote, we pick electors for Trump!" In theory. They *could*. Of course this would be insane. But would Republicans do if they could win this way? Of course. And SCOTUS would decide.
Republicans have been talking about this plan for months, how to steal the election. Here's a story from back in September.
abajournal.com/news/article/d…
abajournal.com/news/article/d…
"The Trump campaign is discussing plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states...."
This was in the Republican playbook from before the election. Plan B when they lose: claim fraud and then overrule a popular vote at the state level.
This was in the Republican playbook from before the election. Plan B when they lose: claim fraud and then overrule a popular vote at the state level.
"With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly." December 14th is key here. abajournal.com/news/article/d…
"If a GOP-controlled legislature was to appoint electors for Trump, but the Democratic governor refuses to certify them, which decision would control? No one knows the answer for sure."
And who would decide? Who wins? The Republican stacked Supreme Court would decide, based on legal seeds planted by Bush v Gore in 2000.
And thus ends our democracy.
Do I think this will happen? No. But let's be on guard to make sure it doesn't. The bastards are sneaky.
And thus ends our democracy.
Do I think this will happen? No. But let's be on guard to make sure it doesn't. The bastards are sneaky.
That's why these other states matter. If Pennsylvania can't turn the election, the crazy becomes the impossible.
But getting the votes "certified" at the state level is key. Before 12/8 "safe harbor." And that's why Republicans are working against that. reuters.com/article/us-usa…
But getting the votes "certified" at the state level is key. Before 12/8 "safe harbor." And that's why Republicans are working against that. reuters.com/article/us-usa…
"In Michigan, where Biden won by 2.6 percentage points or more than 148,000 votes, two Republican state senators have asked the state’s top election officials to audit the results before certifying them." It's not about the vote, it's about preventing certification.
And then there's this: "Trump has other motivations for prolonging his fight. His campaign is working on retiring its debt and contributions to his legal fund can also be used for that purpose." With Trump, there's always a con.
More good news! Biden wins Georgia. I think that gives Biden 306 votes, which means Pennsylvania's 20 votes are all but irrelevant. That should end the fight. nbcnews.com/politics/2020-…
What a loser. nytimes.com/2020/11/12/us/…
As @dplymyer says: "There is a remarkable amount of ignorance about the nature of the threat. Assuming that we dodge this bullet, which I believe that we will, we came a lot closer to a conflagration than most people are aware." dplymyer.medium.com/america-appear…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
