Alright @sarahcpr -- a lot of people definitely feel your distress here. Some things to know:

1- While the Constitution gives state legislatures power on how to choose electors, every state has had a law since the 1800s requiring that electors be appointed based on popular vote.
2- State legislatures theoretically could change those laws, but not now, not retroactively for 2020 election. If they want to change the laws now for 2024, go for it (they'd need both state houses and governor's signature), and pay the consequences in their own next elections.
3- Even if this insane idea gains momentum, GOP legislators and those close to them already have said they won't go along with it in at least MI and PA
4- They don't have nearly enough evidence, if any at all, of significant vote fraud. Tweets and screaming and viral videos do not cut it as proof in court, as we are seeing with dismissal after dismissal.
5- The "faithless electors" thing won't go anywhere. Electors are chosen by political parties and tend to be among the party faithful. Good luck getting any Dem elector to vote for Trump -- never mind 37 of them it would take to change the result.
6- Even if they do succeed in changing the outcome in one major state -- say MI or PA -- it will be a historic disgrace, and a miracle. And it still won't be nearly enough. They'd need to do this for at least 3 close swing states.
7- I totally get the concern. Insane, unhinged, disinformation pressers like Rudy's "Elite Strike Force" s**-show only make it worse. They're doing real and lasting harm. But ultimately they will not succeed.

(You keep people laughing and relaxed; I'll try to help on law stuff)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Elie Honig

Elie Honig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @eliehonig

10 Nov
This is an outrageous abuse of power by William Barr, and a dangerous extension of his ongoing effort to distort truth and DOJ policy to save Trump's hide.

1) Barr has been trying to prop up President Trump's "massive fraud" narrative for months now, utterly without success, embarrassing himself and DOJ.

Shortly after Trump started raging about mail-in ballots, Barr started echoing the rhetoric right back.
2) Barr claimed to NPR in June there are “so many occasions for fraud there that cannot be policed. I think it would be very bad.” He also raised “the possibility of counterfeiting.” When pressed on whether he had evidence to support this claim, he responded, “No, it’s obvious.”
Read 14 tweets
6 Nov
There’s so much wrong with this. Mini-thread:

1) The Supreme Court doesn’t “step in” and do anything. They only consider actual legal disputes that go through proper procedural channels to reach them, and then only if they choose to grant certiorari (review).
2) Nor can any party simply “take a case” to the Supreme Court. Again: you need standing, a justiciable claim, proper procedure through lower federal courts or state Supreme Court and, preferably, legal support and evidence. Even then it’s up to the Court if they take the case.
3) The President has this childlike view that the Supreme Court can point at him and declare him the winner. That’s not how it works. They didn’t even do that in Bush v. Gore. They ruled on a specific procedure in a crazy-close race. Right or wrong, it was a legit legal dispute.
Read 5 tweets
23 Oct
We're 11 days out from the Election Day 2020.

11 days before the 2016 election, James Comey sent a letter to Congress about the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. (1/4)
The nonpartisan DOJ Inspector General later found that Comey committed a "serious error of judgment" that violated "longstanding Department practice." Indeed, Comey broke DOJ's written rules and its unwritten but widely observed norms (2/4)
There’s no way to know for sure, but the analytics whizzes at @FiveThirtyEight concluded that Comey’s announcement “probably cost Clinton the election.” (3/4)…
Read 4 tweets
2 Oct
Truly hope none of this comes to pass, but here's the legal and Constitutional machinery that could activate if necessary.

1) Under the 25th Amendment, the President can voluntary and temporarily transfer power to the VP if the president is or will be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." This has happened several times, recently when GW Bush underwent routine medical procedures.
2) The 25th Amendment also enables the VP, joined by a majority of Cabinet officers (some uncertainty about exactly who qualifies), to certify in writing to Congress that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." If so, VP takes over, but:
Read 8 tweets
26 Sep
Judge (soon to be Justice) Amy Coney Barrett: "His [Justice Scalia's] judicial philosophy is my philosophy."

Quick story, going to back to my law school days:
1) When I was in law school, one of my professors announced one day, "We won't have our normal class on Thursday; instead we'll meet here Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Don't ask me why because I won't tell, and don't tell your friends, but just be here."
2) We walk in Saturday morning, slightly dazed but intrigued, for this mystery weekend class. And there, in the front of the lecture hall, is Justice Antonin Scalia (this was 1997 or 98). My professor leaned liberal but had clerked for Justice Scalia a few years prior.
Read 8 tweets
26 Sep
DOJ's announcement about the Pennsylvania ballot investigation is so deeply wrong, and telling, that I'm gonna do a rare thread:
1) DOJ never publicly confirms a criminal investigation, other than in extremely rare, emergency situations. It's a written rule (in the Justice Manual) and an unwritten norm that anybody who has ever worked a day on the line knows (that would *not* include Barr, I suppose)
2) And you sure as hell never publicly announce the *details* of an investigation. Here, the "fact" that nine ballots were for Trump is entirely irrelevant to any criminal charge. (Spoiler: they got this wrong). There's only one reason to include that (non-)fact: politics.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!