I'll lay the entire process out here, and show why this can't happen. Applicable law: The Electoral Count Act and of course, your favorite document and mine, the Constitution, or, if you prefer cliff notes: crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF…

Here's what happens on Jan. 6.

1/
The Houses meet to count the votes.

Both Houses are required by law to declare the winner of the election.

But (and here's the rub) members may object to particular electors.

2/
This creates some theater. Trump loyalists can object.

What then? If both a Senator and member of the House object to a particular elector, there is a recess. The Houses meet separately for a maximum of 2 hours.

They vote. If both Houses agree, the delegates are tossed.

3/
"An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded." (For additional information, see CRS Report RL 32717)

So you can see there is opportunity for theater, but not for declaring Trump the winner.

4/
One bit of confusion is the House votes by delegation, meaning one vote per state. Nope. That only happens if the electoral college splits 269-269.

There is a zero chance the Democratic-held house will vote to exclude electors.

5/
If two slates of electors show up (highly unlikely) and Congress can’t resolve the dispute, it gets kicked back to the state and the governor decides, not the legislature.

The governors of PA, GA, and AZ have indicated they are not going to play.

6/
Because Biden has so many more electors, 3 of the governors would have to agree, and PA has a Democratic governor, so that won't happen.
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF…

If I get any of this wrong, I trust a helpful Twitter peep will let me know 😉

7/
Left off MI. Big Gretch is absolutely not playing. Actually, either is Kemp or Ducey.

So the whole scheme is dead in the water.

Expect there to theater as all the loyal minions trip over themselves to object and show that they are loyal to Trump.


8/
Yes, it will. Under the Constitution, Congress regulates elections. Besides, the Supreme Court has given us a spectacular demonstration of its unwillingness to engage in a power grab over presidential elections.



9/
He also had a lot banked on the Supreme Court case, and that didn't work out so well.

He's looking for demonstrations of loyalty so he can retain his grip on the Republican Party so he can retain the power that comes with controlling a major party.


10/
What frustrates him about SCOTUS's decision not even letting him in the door is this: He wants a trial to create drama and theater.

He wants all eyes riveted on the stage as he presents his "evidence" (spreads his lies).

So the theatrical part of Jan. 6 matters to him.

11/
I put this on my blog, here: terikanefield-blog.com/what-to-expect…
This NYT article comes to the same conclusion. The headline says "long shot," but the scholars interviewed were paraphrased as saying "all but certain to fail." (Really, just "certain")

The article emphasizes the toxicity of the drama likely to occur.
nytimes.com/2020/12/13/us/… Image
I take issue with calling this an "awkward test of allegiance for Republicans."

Awkward?

The choice is between Trump's lies and baseless attacks on the election, and the truth.

If the choice isn't easy, that tells you everything you need to know about these Republicans. Image
I assume you mean me, even though I'm not a professor 😉


Unless the GOP leadership grows a spine and shuts the whole thing down, yes, I we can expect headline-grabbing antics intended to spread lies and disinformation and keep Trump relevant until 2022.
Biden's electors were handpicked by the Dems. To give two well-known examples, HRC is an elector from NY and Stacey Abrams is an elector from GA.

They picked people who won't flip.
Also, there are legal consequences.
Also, think how many would have to.
You can see that @marceelias gave a much more succinct answer.

Theoretically this could happen, but consider that you'd need a majority in both houses. Right now, Republican Senators are starting to say, move on.

If it did happen, you'd have a major constitutional crisis because, if Congress rejected . . .

. . . electors that had been certified by the states, Congress would be overturning the will of the majority (or at least as speaking through the electoral college.)

This would throw the country into utter chaos. Think of the George Floyd protests . . .
. . . and imagine what would happen.

Rule of law / democracy is in many ways a choice.

I've been saying that democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.

A weakness . . .
. . . is that at any time, a majority of people can decide they don't want democracy anymore, and it will cease to exist.

If, for example, a clear majority had voted for Trump, a majority would say, 'we don't want democracy.'

Elections matter. Our voices matter.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield 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!

PDF

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 @Teri_Kanefield

14 Dec
This is equal parts horrifying and absurd. These are not real electors. There is not a "competing" slate of electors.

It's the Nevada GOP showing that they are completely unhinged from reality. Image
You see, Nevada certified its election for Biden on 11/24.
forbes.com/sites/alisondu…
Nevada law requires that the electors are legally bound to vote for whoever wins the presidential election in NV. apnews.com/article/electi…
Dear Nevada GOP:

It's time for Election Law 101.

Because of a complicated system we have called the electoral college, when you vote for president, you don't actually vote for president, you vote for a slate of electors.

The GOP electors lost when Trump lost the election. Image
Read 4 tweets
14 Dec
Here it is. What is surely the last gasp of the strategy to accomplish a judicial coup d'état.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.

Who is surprised? Nobody.

But it's still fun.

wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Dis………

Reading it now . . .

1/ Image
Petitioners sought to "invalidate the ballots" of more than 220,000 Wisconsin voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties.

As with the other complaints, the issue wasn't that any voters did anything wrong; it's how the election was conducted.

1/ ImageImage
The doctrine of laches as applied to elections in a nutshell: You can't agree to the rules, wait to see how the election turns out, and then challenge the rules.

That's why lawyers kept saying the courts won't allow it, even if the judges are Republicans.

2/ Image
Read 9 tweets
14 Dec
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
rand.org/pubs/perspecti…

1/
The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.

The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
In fact, that's the whole point.

Putin perfected the method.

2/
It seems to come naturally to Trump.

@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.

The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.

3/
Read 12 tweets
13 Dec
What is Happening In America in 4 Tweets

#1:Trump invents whatever suits his fancy.

#2: People around Trump tell him he is right: He is entitled to the presidency as was robbed of what he deserves.

Read 5 tweets
12 Dec
In Trump World, it makes sense to spend months and millions of dollars trying to overturn an election while ignoring a virus that killed over 300,000 Americans.

For Trump and pals, the purpose of government isn’t to help people. It’s to protect the power of those at the top.
A lot of people do not believe that the purpose of government is to help people. They call that socialism.

For them, government maintains the hierarchy.

That's why they think mandating masks is tyranny, but tax cuts for corporations is good government.
That's because you're a person who believes fairness and equality are possible.
Some people don't believe that. They think some people belong at the top, and that if nature takes its course, the "makers" end up a the top and the "takers' at the bottom. . .
Read 4 tweets
11 Dec
That's not how it works {sarcasm}

If you voted for Biden by mail, it doesn't count.
If you voted for Trump by mail, it does.
Otherwise you'd have to throw out all of Utah's electors.

My husband saw this exact kind of thing in Chile under Pinochet.

1/
Pinochet's government would invent a silly argument intended to make a power grab appear legal. Nobody was fooled.

Team Trump is creating a transparent pretext to give SCOTUS the chance to overturn the election.

Pinochet didn't actually let judges decide, though.

2/
That's the key difference. Pinochet was able to invent silly legal arguments and get away with it because he had the military behind him. (And yes, I know about the US involvement😉)

Trump seems to think he owns SCOTUS. He appointed a few justices, so they "owe" him.

3/
Read 4 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!