Can Trump Really Lose the Election and Remain President?

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Former Senator Timothy Wirth, writing with Tom Rogers, yesterday published what is perhaps the most plausible account of how President Trump could lose the election and remain President. The essence: Trump makes unfounded claims that China interfered in the election, the Justice Department investigates, the legislatures of four swing states Biden appeared to win decide to refuse to certify the Electoral College slate pending the investigation, the Supreme Court rules that the Electoral College must be held without those states, and Trump wins when the election is thrown to the House of Representatives voting by state.

Enhancing the argument's superficial appeal is that states don't have to use popular elections at all to choose the electors for President. Under Article II, § 1, cl. 2, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." As a legal matter, a state almost certainly could decide to cancel its popular election and name specific electors. Whether those electors could be bound to vote for a particular candidate is yet to be decided, but reasonably safe electors presumably could be found, even given the possibility of attempts to bribe or unduly influence electors. There does not, however, appear to be any movement in any state to eliminate popular voting for President. (I place aside the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is based on the principle that the national popular vote rather than state popular votes should control.) The public does not want to abandon popular voting for a state's electoral votes in favor of the decisions of state legislators. I would be surprised if more than a very small portion of voters in a state would support this, even if there is a high probability that the state popular vote will be different from what legislators would decide.

Could a state retroactively cancel a popular vote and substitute the will of legislatures? Maybe, in theory. It isn't clear "as the Legislature therefore may direct" implies that the direction must be in advance of the election. But as in the federal government, state legislatures may "direct" outcomes only by passing legislation, which requires governors' signatures.  (Jason Harrow noted this in March in explaining why red state legislatures would be unlikely to use coronavirus as an excuse to cancel elections in advance.) Three of the four states in the Wirth-Rogers scenario have Democratic governors.

But could a state refuse to certify electors after the fact, with the goal of depriving Biden of a majority? Perhaps this seems more likely, in that it might occur as a result of executive or judicial action in a particular state. But with so many Democratic governors in the relevant states, executive action does not seem likely here. Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is majority-Democratic and the Wisconsin Supreme Court consists of elected Justices who would thus seem unlikely to nullify the actions of voters in their states.

It's not even clear that a state could decide not to certify a slate of electors. "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President," the Twelfth Amendment commands. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court emphasized the importance of a definitive resolution so that the Electoral College could meet on schedule. This provides a strong precedent for the Court to resolve a disputed election in some way.

My ultimate disagreement with Wirth and Rogers, however, not a difference in legal interpretation. They are more cynical than I am–even more cynical, I should say, as I am pretty cynical. Their cynicism starts with the assumption that President Trump would do anything he could do to stay in office. Let's assume that they are right about that. Their cynicism becomes too much when they assume that everyone else, particularly state legislators and Supreme Court Justices, will do whatever it takes to achieve their preferred outcome in the election. I disagree. I believe that Supreme Court Justices will not support actions transparently designed to thwart the will of voters, and state legislators will not either. Any such action would meet the strong disapproval, at the least, not only of Biden supporters but also of many Trump supporters. Polarization notwithstanding, Americans still believe in elections.

Some might say that the true lesson of Bush v. Gore is that Supreme Court Justices will do whatever it takes to have their preferred party win presidential elections. Indeed, Maxwell Stearns and I opened an article on Bush v. Gore with a prescient quote from Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth: "If a case on the outcome of a presidential election should reach the Supreme Court, … the Court's decision might well turn on the personal preferences of the justices." I do not think it a coincidence that the Court in Bush v. Gore was split on partisan lines (at least on the question of remedy for the Equal Protection violation found by seven Justices). But Segal and Spaeth qualified their statement by noting that this would happen only "if" a case reached the court and by noting that it "might well turn" on justices' preferences. Even ardent attitudinalists do not believe that the Supreme Court will use just any manufactured excuse to overturn a clear election. After all, the Supreme Court hasn't resolved any other election.

Sure, the 2016 election could be resolved in courts, legislatures, or the Supreme Court if there is genuine doubt about how to count the results in a particular state. If it emerged that a foreign power really did stuff ballot boxes with mail-in votes, there would be a legitimate dilemma about how to proceed. But the claim that state legislatures and the Supreme Court would disingenuously overturn a clear election result with a bogus interference theory (even if the President were to invite such action) is fanciful.

NEXT: Two Reflections on the American Revolution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Left, as is letting us know their game plan to overthrow the election when Trump wins.

    1. My thoughts exactly.

      1. Well, the crack-smoking contingent is well represented on this thread, already.

        1. Don’t interrupt! I love when two of them egg each other on.

          1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Skills Required. FEd Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot..

            Heres what I do……New Income Opportunities

        2. Well the subject of the thread IS crack smokers fantasy, so why not?

          If a former US Senator wants to indulge his crack fantasy in an op-ed well why can’t we join in in the comments?

      2. My last month’s online earning was $21930 just by doing an easy job online. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job about 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Everybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website….…Click For Full Details.

    2. Democrats are clear they have no peaceful intentions for us, their enemies, whether Biden wins or not. We must defeat them utterly by ballot in November and by force of arms afterwards if that be their wish.

  2. Maybe Senator Wirth shouldn’t be putting ideas in Trump’s head.

    And the possibility, fanciful or not, only exists at all because we have an electoral college.

    1. This idea is the basis of the last 3 years of democrat politics. We are a representative republic, not a mob-rule democracy. The electoral college prevents large population states from having the ability to control the election.

      1. Why should I take seriously someone who compares free and democratic elections to mobs?

        1. Pure democracy IS a mob. How would a minority have ANY rights in a democracy? The majority is under no obligation to give them any.

          1. The Bill of Rights, and a strong and independent judiciary to enforce the Bill of Rights.

            Now, if what you’re really worried about is the majority making policy you don’t like, the answer is that there is no right to always get your way politically. And stripping the majority of its right to self governance is a pretty drastic remedy.

            1. There is a method for amending the Constitution if you don’t like it, and they made it difficult for a reason, it’s a good thing we’ve had very few ill considered muddle headed amendments enacted (although the16th, 17th, 18th was a particularly bad run).

              1. There is an official method; it is difficult. There is also an unofficial method: convince a majority of the Supreme Court; this is much easier. I doubt the Court would decide this on a partisan basis for Trump. I think it is possible the Biden camp may sue to set aside the votes in states that narrowly vote for Trump. They could argue there is Chinese or Russian interference; they could argue that there are irregularities in processing absentee ballots. The case goes to the Supreme Court. If it decides in favor of Biden, they win. If it decides in favor of Trump, they get a partial victory because they can still claim that Trump was not really re-elected. They can use the next 4 years to gin up progressive anger in hopes of winning the presidency and control of the senate in 2024 and then use the illegitimacy of the Trump administration as grounds for all kinds of ground breaking structural changes.

            2. “The Bill of Rights, and a strong and independent judiciary to enforce the Bill of Rights.”

              That’s called being a republic. If we were a democracy, none of those would exist.

              1. That’s ridiculous. All this “We are a republic, not a democracy” business is nonsense.

                You can easily be a republic – a representative democracy – with out the distortions caused by the EC.

                1. No, you thoroughly could not. The country would be NYC in that case.

                  1. As opposed to the whole country being Mississippi? I’ll take New York.

                    1. MS seems to have way less murder and far more liberty. I’d take MS over NY. Happily.

                      But MS isn’t in danger of dominating the political scene in the US. NY definitely is.

              2. You have no idea what you are talking about. We could be a full-on Republic, a representative democracy, a full democracy, etc., and the Bill of Rights together with a strong and independent judiciary would preserve minority rights the same way it does today.

                Most states have direct popular election of their governors and they still have state constitutions and independent judiciaries that stop wholesale abuse of racial, ethnic, religious, political, etc., minorities. Go take a civics class.

                1. Not only that, if a state attempted to elect its governor using a method comparable to the electoral college it would most likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment. For that matter, the electoral college would likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment had it not been written into the Constitution itself.

                2. Most states have direct popular election of their governors and they still have state constitutions and independent judiciaries that stop wholesale abuse of racial, ethnic, religious, political, etc., minorities. Go take a civics class.

                  *cough* Amendment XIV *cough*

                  1. Wuz,

                    Surely, you are not suggesting that only the U.S. Constitution contains such protections vis a vis the states?

                    I am sure, being so learned, that you are aware that State constitutions also have protections for religious, racial, and other minorities, free speech protections, rights to jury trials, etc.. Right?

                    For example, Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution provides (only in part, there is much more):

                    …that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination…

                    Given that you know that, what’s your point about “Amendment XIV”?

                    1. Surely, you are not suggesting that only the U.S. Constitution contains such protections vis a vis the states?

                      No, I’m not suggesting that, nor is there any reason for you to assume that I am.

                      you are aware that State constitutions also have protections for religious, racial, and other minorities, free speech protections, rights to jury trials, etc.. Right?

                      Yes, I am. You are aware that there was a reason why Amendment XIV to CONUS came to be, right?

      2. Actually, I have an idea. Let’s have an election in which your side candidly announces that you think Americans are nothing but a mob, unfit for self governance and incapable of deciding who their president will be. Tell the voters that that’s what you think of them and see what the results are.

        In the meantime I contagion be amazed that anyone votes for a party that insults them in that fashion. If I had an employee who talked to me like that, he’d be gone in no time.

        1. “Continue to be” not contagion

          1. Three points :

            (1) I agree with Mr Abramowicz: the scenario he describes is too egregious a fraud to be acceptable to the Supreme Court or mainstream Right. Certainly they both do conservative’s sleazy work on vote suppression, but act under a heavy smoke screen of weaseling disingenuous platitudes and excuses.

            (2) The amount of psychological projection by Right-type commentators here is totally. absolutely. hilarious. Of course if Trump did try something? And the SCOUS intervened to save the rule of law & integrity of elections? These same usual suspects would pour scorn on the justices as “squishes”

            (3) Yes, this scenario is unlikely, but the fact that it’s even plausible illustrates the moral and ethical rot of Donald John Trump.

            1. Hmmm, some folks to hypothesize about how Trump could theoretically stay in power despite losing the election, and this is evidence of DJT’s moral and ethical rot. Speaking of projection…

              1. Logic comes so hard to a rightist. The scenario noted above is highly unlikely, but was never considered with presidents before Trump, and will probably be inconceivable for those presidents following him. What makes it remotely possible now is the exceptional dishonesty, corruption, narcissism and contempt for democratic norms unique to D.J. Trump. It was the moral & personality failures of this broken man that prompted this speculation, not vice versa.

                Get it?

                1. “ The scenario noted above is highly unlikely, but was never considered with presidents before Trump”

                  BS. The Left has insisted every Republican president starting with Reagan would refuse to accept the results if they lost.

                  It is their normal position to justify their refusal to accept election results with which they disagree.

                2. How do you conclude I’m a rightest, other than by assumption that anyone who questions you must a priori be so?

                  Your contempt for the man does not make other’s speculation into evidence. This is a legal blog after all.

                3. “The scenario noted above is highly unlikely, but was never considered with presidents before Trump, and will probably be inconceivable for those presidents following him.”

                  “Considering” it is something you do, not Trump, and is just telling us about YOUR mental state, not Trump’s.

                4. I’m so old I remember people worrying that Trump would question the legitimacy of the election when Hillary won. Then Trump won, and Hillary questioned the legitimacy of the election. Imagine that.

                  1. Did she? Or did she complain about the wisdom of the electoral college? (Which is very much not the same thing.)

                  2. Except she didn’t question it.

                  3. From CBS: Hillary Clinton: “Trump knows he’s an illegitimate president

                    “I know that he knows that this wasn’t on the level… I don’t know if we’ll ever know everything that happened, but clearly we know a lot…”

                    1. Bull/ Trump won more votes than the Dems could steal.

                  4. No; Trump won, and Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election. Imagine that.

                    It’s bizarre that someone would do that, except if one realizes that Trump has spent the last five years trying to delegitimize every institution in this country. It isn’t about political disagreements; politicians across the spectrum routinely argue that the other side is stupid and wrong and biased. But they don’t try to burn down everything so that they’re the only thing left standing.

                    Republicans have always said that the MSM is biased; Democrats have always complained that Fox isn’t fair and balanced. Trump, uniquely, claims that anything and everything negative about him, regardless of the source, is a lie. Look at Trump’s attacks on Fox News itself, whenever it reports something negative about him. If Fox comes out with a poll where he’s down, he rants that this shows that there’s something wrong with Fox. If a Fox anchor criticizes him, he rants that this person should be fired.

                    Look at his vicious attacks on Jeff Sessions for the crime of being ethical. And his attacks on every other former aide who comes out against him.

                    1. Sure, Trump’s an asshole. But somehow he manages to make his opponents sound just as unhinged as he is. For example, the bizarre speculation in the OP.

                    2. Twelve,

                      It’s not as if he doesn’t invite skepticism regarding his commitment to free and fair elections and democracy in general.

                      “He’s [Xi} now president for life. President for life. And he’s great.” Trump added, “I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

                      “…at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT)…”

                      And you recall the retweet of Falwell Jr.’s suggestion that he get an extra two years. Yes, they are all jokes.

                      (Maybe this is overblown. I certainly recall how ridiculous the people in my hometown were when the openly mused about Obama overstaying his constitutionally mandated two terms. I scoffed and assured them I would join the revolution if that ridiculous scenario were to occur. Of course, it didn’t because Obama is not that kind of man, didn’t find such jokes amusing, and did not have an obvious affection for totalitarians who really do finagle their way into being “President for life”. Trump is different than anyone who went before and is less reticent to steamroll his “guardrails” than anyone who went before. It is a far-fetched scenario, but, before they happen, revolutions almost always are.)

                5. So, because the Left has lost their fucking minds, it is Trump’s fault?

                  Got it.

            2. As opposed to “Landslide Lyndon” and Kennedy STEALING the 1960 election? What you are doing is eliminating any legitimacy of a Biden victory.

            3. “I have these really corrupt thoughts. That makes you corrupt.”

              “When I see an Orc I think of black people and their culture. That makes you a Racist”

              “Listen to these evil thoughts you make me have! You must be a Witch!”

        2. Yeah, you are right, calling a third of American voters “Deplorables” certainly wasn’t a good electoral strategy.

          1. Calling a third of the electorate Libtards is so much better…

        3. “Basket of deplorables”

      3. The electoral college prevents large population states from having the ability to control the election.

        What do you mean by, “large population states” controlling the election.

        The large states wouldn’t control anything. Under a popular vote system the governors of CA, TX, NY and FL don’t get to choose the President. The voters do.

        All you are saying is that votes in large states shouldn’t count as much as those in small states, for some unarticulated bizarre reason. For the billionth time, it wouldn’t be the “states” who vote, it would be the voters, and there is no reason – zip – why a vote cast in CA should count less than one cast in WY. It’s ludicrous.

        You know, Trump got about 4.5 million votes in CA. he did a little better than that in TX and FL, but nowhere else did he get 3 million. Under the EC those CA Trump voters had no say, because they live in a deep blue state. While you complain about the large states controlling things under a popular vote system, under the EC minority party voters in most states don’t count at all, and only those in battleground states matter.

        How anyone can consider that sensible is beyond me.

    2. Last statement wrong. Same mechanism could happen with popular vote.

    3. And the possibility, fanciful or not, only exists at all because we have an electoral college.

      How do you figure? It seems just as plausible in this scenario (i.e. not very) that the states could refuse to certify their popular vote totals.

      1. 1. It would be much less likely that one state would matter under a national popular vote system.

        2. Why would the states have to certify anything?

    4. Worst case scenario:
      We all have to vote by law with ID.
      Problem solved.

      1. There is no existing problem that would be solved with voter ID.

  3. You forgot the bit where the sandbag drops onto the see-saw, raising up one end to startle the chicken, which then lays an egg that rolls down a ramp. These Rube Goldberg schemes always seem to have that sort of thing.

    1. I want to see the resultant omelet.

    2. Electoral College = Rube Goldberg scheme necessary because of 3/5ths Compromise

      1. Well, we amended the Constitution to remove the 3/5ths Compromise, in addition to abolishing slavery and preventing states from denying the right to vote based on race, yet the electoral college remains.

        1. Yes, but those amendments all followed a bloody civil war. Hostility to the electoral college has not yet risen to that level.

        2. “Well, we amended the Constitution to remove the 3/5ths Compromise, ”

          Nope. Never happened.

          1. Well, the 13th Amendment made the 3/5 compromise (which was a method of weighing the effect of slaves on population for purposes of congressional representation) meaningless, effectively repealing it. But I don’t think the 3/5 compromise was the reason for the electoral college in any event. Its purpose was to prevent the large states from having too much power in determining who would be President. That’s a plausible justification which arguably still has some validity today. I’m not wild about the electoral college, but it’s not a terrible idea.

            1. I don’t know if that was the purpose either. In the minds of most of the framers, it was the least bad of the three options on the table for Presidential selection – electoral college, election by Congress, and election by popular vote. I don’t think that making the electoral college mirror the House/Senate representation rules really got any debate in the convention. It was just an easy solution, at that point. Most of them predicted that in most Presidential elections, no one candidate would get an electoral college majority, and it would be thrown to the House of Representatives. So the electoral college was really just a way to narrow the choices available to the House of Reps.

            2. Read your history. The 3/5ths compromise was actually for taxation purposes. When Hamilton issued his reports, the mechanism he proposed mooted the compromise. Hamilton was a pretty smart man. History has not really credited him adequately, IMHO.

              1. History hasn’t adequately blamed him, IMO. Of all the founders, he was the most in love with powerful government. While the other founders were trying for the weakest government that would get the job done, he was planting an acorn to get an oak tree.

                And with damnable success, too.

                1. He was the most in love with a powerful executive branch.

          2. “Nope. Never happened.”

            14th Amendment Section 2:

            “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state…”

            1. Fair enough, I’d forgotten that. Still works for direct taxes, though.

              1. 16th Amendment?

      2. The electoral college was all about diluting the power of the largest states, of which the largest was Virginia, a slave state.

        States like Vermont, Rhode Island, and Delaware were the beneficiaries of the Electoral College and a non-proportional Senate, then and now.

        1. The Senate was about diluting the power of large states. The electoral college was just a compromise to avoid what were perceived as worse ways to elect the president.

  4. During the campaign, much was made of President Trump saying something about perhaps not accepting the results. So, the democrats showed their true colors and continue to do so. Once again, the democrats using the playbook of the Nazis:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Joseph Goebbels

    1. WTF are you talking about?

  5. Four words: President John Quincy Adams….

    1. Four words (well, three words and a letter): President Rutherford B. Hayes

  6. I have little confidence that the Supreme Court will decide an election controversy honestly.

    I’m curious as to why Abramowicz does. Election and voting related cases seem to routinely follow partisan lines.

    1. Given the willingness of 5 Justices to protect Trump and to keep Americans from knowing Trump’s dirty little secrets (as least, as much as possible); I have zero confidence of the Sup Ct’s neutrality in this hypothetical. I’d love to be surprised. But I expect that my own cynicism would be matched by reality.

      Having said that; I found the article more of a thought experiment instead of a realistic scenario. I expect that if Trump loses, he’ll accept the results…albeit with whining and complaining about how unfair the whole process was. But I see nothing wrong with political scientists/analysts creating these interesting hypotheticals, just as I see nothing wrong with us lawyers creating equally complicated legal hypos . . . they tend to be interesting, and sometimes amusing.

      1. I’m still convinced there’s a large part of Trump that doesn’t want to be president, never expected to be elected, and doesn’t know what to do with the job after each day’s lies & carnival-barker nonsense is done. It’s the tremulous Jekyll inside the shell of alpha-man Trump Hyde, cursed with the knowledge it’s in well over its head.

        So yeah, Trump will scream, lie and peddle fantastical conspiracy theories – but only to protect the brand. As Bolton observed, that’s been the only purpose of his presidency all along…..

        1. My original theory was he was pulling an H. Ross Perot, to act as a lightning rod for Republican disaffection to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This would make NY Democrats happy and he’d get vastly reduced paperwork needs (read: kickbacks to corrupt politicians) for new buildings.

          Except instead of splitting the ticket, he’d win the nom then drive his campaign off the cliff with idiotic sayings like about McCaine.

          The theory was flawless until he won.

      2. Actually, it’s kind of useful in that it points out flaws that any sensible democracy would correct.

        Our whole system of electing a President is pretty rickety.

      3. I just wish the political scientists were a little less one sided. What if Biden loses the election, and Democrats refuse to admit he lost? It’s quite likely to happen at this point, if they pull off a legally meaningless popular vote plurality, but lose the Electoral College.

        But, no, they always ask what happens if Trump refuses to accept the election result. Asking this, and not the other, is just a way of furthering the Democratic narrative that Trump is somehow inclined to do criminal things.

        1. Brett : “Democratic narrative that Trump is somehow inclined to do criminal things”

          Facts have a left-wing bias, for sure

          1. Confirmation bias does, anyway.

            1. We could review Trump’s long history of cons, scams and frauds – but I’d prefer to focus in on a couple of incidents that illustrate a mindset. You see, there are criminals for convenience (such as me speeding down the highway) and criminals out of desperation. But for many, contempt for the law (and truth) is just hardwired into their very souls. Trump is like that.

              (1) Inside the grotesque fraud known as the Trump Foundation, there’s this little gem : Donald Trump paid the seven dollar Boy Scout fee for little Don Jr with charity funds. Isn’t that amazing? If you or I faced a tiny expense like that we’d just open our wallet and ante up – and we’re not supposed billionaires. What kind of mind would go criminal on something so petty? Answer : The kind of mind whose default position is criminality.

              (2) 24July was the effective end of Mueller’s investigation, when he testified before Congress there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone over collusion with a foreign government to influence an election. The very next day, 25July, Trump tried to extort collusion from a foreign government to influence an election. But that’s a criminal’s mind at work : Just out the courthouse door having beaten the rap – immediately into the next scam. Normal people aren’t like that….

              1. So your second instance was a batshit insane theory?

                And, again, TRUMP is the issue?

                1. The second instance recites the facts. Trump did try to extort Ukraine to influence the 2020 election and he did so immediately following the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

                  After being acquitted by a Republican-controlled Senate that didn’t want to have a trial with actual witnesses, he has set about trying to even the score with numerous witnesses who did nothing but relate the facts that they knew. You teach people how to treat you. Trump keeps learning that his fanciful Fifth Avenue boast maybe wasn’t as fanciful as we imagined. Will there ever be a point Republican Senators (Romney excepted) don’t just roll over for him?

                  1. Which, of course, was factually incorrect. Hard to take anybody seriously who actually claims this happened.

                    1. Hey, that’s what actually happened… In the bearded Spock universe, where Trump gave a dark speech promoting white supremacy at Mt. Rushmore, of course, not THIS universe.

                      The media are currently running an experiment on the strong anthropic principle: If you gaslight enough people at the same time, can you actually move them to the alternate universe where your lies are true?

                      Oh, and even though they’re lies, history faculties run about 30-1 Democratic, so in a generation or two, when nobody is around who actually saw what was going on, and everybody is just going by the history books, people WILL think the lies are truth.

                    2. damikesc,

                      That Republican Senators decided it was not impeachable conduct to trade US aid for election help says nothing about what actually happened. “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” There is only one reasonable interpretation of that.

                      Zelensky: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.

                      Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though. [followed by nutty Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, praise of a corrupt prosecutor as “your very good prosecutor”, and the lie that “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it”].

                      Facts are facts. Have the balls to say you don’t mind withholding US military aid to apply pressure for help in an election, if that’s your position. But don’t pretend it didn’t happen.

          2. You mean like the Russian Collusion?

        2. Well, he does seem to have done some criminal things so it’s not entirely unwarranted.

          1. Biden seems to have done some criminal things too, now hasn’t he?

            1. Yeah, right. You want to see psychological projection at work? Armchair Lawyer provides a case study.

              No, Biden hasn’t.
              Any more questions?

              1. “No Biden hasn’t”

                A little plagarism, some sexual assault, a little collusion with a corrupt Ukrainian gas company for little biden, a little corruption with China for little Biden, some “friends of Biden” stuff to rip off a few Native American Tribes, and let’s not forget “suggesting” using an unconstitutional Logan act to prosecute a new incoming administration.

                But, sure. “Nothing criminal”. If that’s your standard. Just hold Trump to the same Biden Standard, mmm Kay?

                1. So you want to embarrass yourself, eh?

                  1. Nothing criminal in Biden lifting part of a speech. Embarrassing, to be sure.

                  2. Your Ukrainian shtick is tired blather. In calling for the ouster of Shokin, Biden was following a presidential order, the directive of the State Department, policy aims of the United States government, similar demands by the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, a bipartisan consensus of the Senate, the policy objective of the European Union, parallel action by the World Bank, similar measures by the IMF & European Bank for Reconstruction, and Development (EBRD) – and also the heartfelt objective of every anti-corruption and reform group in Ukraine itself (if they count)

                  They all demanded Shokin be fired. All of which means you are full of shit, Armchair Lawyer (and you know it). But I’m guessing that’s number-one prerequisite for being a Trump supporter.

                  3. China? Native Americans? Anymore more fantasies to peddle?

                  4. But Biden didn’t suggest “using an unconstitutional Logan act to prosecute a new incoming administration”. You just made that up.

                  This garbage is the best you have to offer ?!?

                  1. Not to mention that the Logan Act isn’t unconstitutional, and “suggesting” something isn’t a crime anyway.

                    1. Riiight. That’s why, in over 200 years, nobody has EVER been convicted under it, even where a couple of people were charged, they dropped the charge before prosecuting: Because it isn’t unconstitutional.

                      That that’s how you keep an unconstitutional law on the books for 200 years, by never, ever actually trying to use it in court, is beside the point, right?

                    2. Brett, I’d say that you’re in over your head here, but that would be underinclusive; you’re in over your head everywhere.

                    3. Well, if I’m wrong about that, you’ll be able to list some people who got prosecuted under the Logan act, and convicted. Surely in over 200 years, must have happened to SOMEBODY, right?

                      Unless it’s a law everybody understands is unconstitutional, so they never prosecute anybody to create a test case, and get it struck down.

                  2. 1. Plagarism is illegal.
                    2. I noticed you conveniently “forgot” the sexual assault…
                    3. I’m not surprised you buried your head in the sand over the $60 Million in Securities Fraud that Biden’s name helped to sell, ripping off our Native Americans…

                    It’s OK. You’ve buried your head in the sand.

                    1. 1. No, it isn’t. Seriously, armchair law school really overcharged you.

                      2. You said Biden “seems to have done” criminal things. But he doesn’t seem to have committed sexual assault.

                      3. It was Hunter Biden’s name, not Joe Biden’s. But Hunter Biden was not even accused of, let alone convicted of, wrongdoing. (Biden’s partner Devon Archer was — and that conviction was then overturned because the judge found there was no evidence that Archer had any knowledge of the fraud.)

                    2. 1. It kinda is. For example, when you plagarize from published works (like Biden has done), another word for that is “Copyright infringement”. Which is…illegal.

                      2. “Seems to have”….”Been accused of.” But it’s always sad to see supposed liberals turn a blind eye to sexual assault allegations from powerful liberals. Not unexpected, mind you. But sad.

                      3. Oh, just “Hunter” Biden’s name…. Remind me, what exactly is “Hunter” Biden famous for? Why does his name carry weight?

                    3. 1. Wrong. Setting aside that copyright infringement is only criminal in the U.S. in certain narrow circumstances — none of which would be present in any of the instances of Biden’s actions — plagiarism and copyright infringement are different concepts. Copyright infringement involves copying the actual expression used, whereas plagiarism involves claiming credit for someone else’s ideas.

                      2. Let me know when you’re talking to a supposed liberal.

                      3. Look, a squirrel!

                    4. A.L.,

                      If you think Nieporent is a liberal you haven’t paid attention, or maybe you’re just too recent an arrival here.

                    5. David,

                      1. I get so tired of your word games….I said it was ILLEGAL. Not Criminal. Two two aren’t synonymous. For a supposed lawyer, (and I have my doubts, given your posts) you seem to have issues with this. And when someone decides to take 5 pages of a published, copyrighted work, and pass them off as his own in a 15 page report…that’s plagarism. And copyright infringement.

                      Bernard,

                      I apologize, David doesn’t really clearly state his political views, so he may not be a liberal. He simple ACTS in such a manner that he appears to be a certain type of condescending liberal of which I’m well aware of. The type that holds their nose at other “lesser” types, while simultaneously holding that he “fights” for their “rights”…as long as they are kept at arms length. The type who simply cannot imagine why others would vote for Trump, because he has no real empathy for their concerns, and so must assign them traits of racism or some other negative stereotype so they can be mentally denigrated in his head.

                    6. Armchair,

                      You are incredibly dense or incredibly dishonest:

                      Biden seems to have done some criminal things to – AL at beginning of thread.

                      A little plagarism,…. – AL when confronted with the absence of evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by Biden

                      I said it was ILLEGAL. Not Criminal. – AL at end of thread.

                      You said it was criminal or words don’t mean anything. Apologize and go away.

                    7. In claiming that Biden had done some criminal things you listed plagiarism.

                    8. A.L.,

                      David’s political views are no secret. He has not concealed them.

                      As to the rest of your diatribe, well, I don’t think it’s accurate. I do admit that, speaking for myself, while I understand why people voted for Trump in 2016, I don’t see any excuse for voting for him in 2020.

                  3. “the policy objective of the European Union, parallel action by the World Bank, similar measures by the IMF & European Bank for Reconstruction, and Development (EBRD)”

                    Man, that’s like saying, “The Bloods, the Crips, AND the Mafia all agreed that Shokin was corrupt!” The levels of corruption in international organizations is terrifying.

                    1. Right Brett.

                      All those organizations were working hard to get Hunter Biden a good job.

                      That’s pathetic.

                    2. They don’t give a damn about Hunter, but they certainly don’t want their own bribes exposed.

                      Another Scandal Rocks the IMF

                      “The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, was found guilty on Monday of neglect while she was France’s finance minister in 2008.

                      The court did not fine Lagarde or sentence her to any jail time, and on Monday evening the IMF board announced it would retain Lagarde as chief despite the conviction.

                      Lagarde was appointed managing director of the IMF in 2011 after Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director, resigned amidst accusations of sexual assault. “

                    3. Or, how about this?

                      Former IMF chief to serve four years in prison over ‘black cards’ case

                      “Former managing director of the International Monetary Fund and ex-finance minister of Spain Rodrigo Rato began a four-year stint in prison on Thursday (25 October) over his involvement in the so-called ‘black cards’ case.

                      Another major political scandal has ended with a reputed Spanish politician in prison. Rodrigo Rato will spend the next four and a half years in a cell in Soto Del Real (Madrid) as a result of his participation in a credit card fraud scheme when he was head of state-owned lender Bankia.”

                      Seriously, these organizations are basically all corrupt. They’re more likely to attack a prosecutor for being honest than for being on the take; On the take is no threat to them, just a business expense.

                    4. Brett,

                      Interesting that you find it evidence of corruption of the IMF that people involved with the IMF committed crimes while in other jobs. Meanwhile, back at Trump HQ:

                      Manafort – convicted

                      Michael Cohen – convicted (of conspiring with “Individual 1”, moreover)

                      Roger Stone – convicted

                      Do you apply the same logical standard here? The rest of us do.

                    5. What were they trying to cover up, Brett, that Shokin was on the verge of exposing?

                      Negligence at the IMF? Spanish credit card fraud?

                      No. He wasn’t. So stop with these delusional BS “arguments.”

                  4. GRB, you didn’t address the sexual assault allegation, which seems to be the playbook, just ignore it.

                    1. The sexual assault allegation cannot be proven according to the usual criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It probably cannot even be proven to the standard of preponderance of evidence. BUT, Biden and most of the Democrats endorsing him have called for Kavanaugh and college men to be judged by a standard very close to “accusation = proof”. By the standard that Biden wants others to be judged, he is guilty as hell.

              2. Denial isn’t an argument, you know.

                1. Exactly. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

                  1. No, it isn’t!

                  2. That was never 5 minutes just now!

                2. It does seem to be one you rely on upthread, concerning Trump’s extortion of Ukraine, etc.

        3. What if Biden loses the election, and Democrats refuse to admit he lost?

          Since he’s not the incumbent, that seems like a much less interesting question.

          1. I give you the last four years – – – – – – – –

          2. Never stopped Stacey Abrams and the Dems attitude towards her…

        4. Democrats WILL refuse to admit that Biden lost. That’s a given…

        5. It’s quite likely to happen at this point, if they pull off a legally meaningless popular vote plurality, but lose the Electoral College.

          Well, that’s what happened in 2016. There was certainly a lot of grousing by various people, but nothing that said “the Democrats” refused to admit Clinton lost. No lawsuits, no allegations of fraud, no concrete actions at all. The only allegations I recall came from your guy, Trump, who simply couldn’t accept that he didn’t win the popular vote, so made up a bunch of crap, which you likely defend, about voter fraud and so on.

          Was it somehow illegitimate to criticize the system that put this human wrecking ball in the White House?

          1. are you just making a joke?

            “various people, but nothing that said “the Democrats” refused to admit Clinton lost. No lawsuits, no allegations of fraud, no concrete actions at all. The only allegations I recall came from your guy, Trump”

            or did you just awake from a coma?

            1. Leftist memory deficit.

              1. “Leftist memory deficit.”

                does this explain why you fail to recall that Hillary conceded? Or do you live in a reality so stretched that it’s possible that the candidate accepted that she lost but at the same time does not accept that she lost?

  7. Won’t SCOTUS protect us from this implausible scenario?

  8. THE PATRIOT CITIZENS OF THE US WILL MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE AND BURN IT TO THE GROUND OVER THIS TYPE OF ACTION…

    1. Who do you think we are, the British?

  9. After all, the Supreme Court hasn’t resolved any other election.

    Tilden vs. Hayes?

    1. Although that election was decided by a commission that included 5 Supreme Court justices, among others, it wasn’t actually decided by the Court.

  10. Former Senator Timothy Wirth, writing with Tom Rogers, yesterday published what is perhaps the most plausible account of how President Trump could lose the election and remain President. The essence: Trump makes unfounded claims that China interfered in the election, the Justice Department investigates, the legislatures of four swing states Biden appeared to win decide to refuse to certify the Electoral College slate pending the investigation, the Supreme Court rules that the Electoral College must be held without those states, and Trump wins when the election is thrown to the House of Representatives voting by state.

    This is not a remotely plausible scenario, not while the Democrats hold a majority in the House of Representatives. With the current House, this is a loss for Trump.

    1. The (absurd) procedure is that each state gets one vote. I haven’t looked up the breakdown of the delegations, but Presumably Wirth and Rogers did, and determined that Republicans control more delegations than Democrats.

      1. We’re a union of several different states.

        1. Whatever, A.L. It doesn’t make the system any less absurd.

          You confuse a positive statement with a normative one.

          1. It’s not “absurd” if you think about the context.

            We’re a union of 50 states. If the EC fails to obtain a majority, in many contexts, it makes sense for each member of the union to have a single vote.

            It’s done this way at the UN as well. Each member state, no matter how large or how small has a single vote in the general assembly. In the security council, each member has one vote with the permanent members having veto authority.

            1. The United States hasn’t been a union of 50 equal states since 1789 (let’s not dwell on the exact date, since that’s a whole different story).

              1. (Let’s not dwell on the exact date)…

                What’s 160 years or so between friends?

                  1. Sigh,

                    It’s always a little sad when the references need to be explained.

                    If you’re talking about a union of FIFTY equal states, the proper date is 1959, because that’s when Alaska and Hawaii joined the union.

                    Get it?

                    1. The notion that the states are, or have ever been, equals is one of romantic fantasy. It’s been about alliances since the beginning. This is why the Missouri compromise was necessary, and ultimately there was a bit of fighting over whose alliance of states should be superior. Losing that fight is why the southern states lost the ability to block the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

              1. So, context is important.

                We’re a federal system, a union of 50 different states. Because of that, a backup system for electing the president, where each state gets a single vote makes a certain amount of sense.

                The federal system makes a good deal of sense, especially in a country as diverse and widespread as ours.

                1. The whole point of a federal system is to allow heterogeneous groups to live together without one group being ground under the heel of another. Since the left sincerely wishes to engage in some heel grinding, they’ve got no use for federalism.

                  1. the point of limiting the power of the Presidency is so that if a partisan moron gets the job, they can’t break things too badly. But since the right sincerely wishes to give the President the power to rule by decree, and they have a guy right now who’d happily take that power if he could get it, the damage they are doing to the country by continuing on their present course, is entirely their own. Interesting that you find being required to treat people of every race as equally valuable is “heel-grinding”. Man, it must SUCK to be so oppressed!

                    1. Both sides want rule by decree. That’s the eyes that need opening.

                    2. Have you forgotten Obama’s “pen and phone”?!?

                    3. “Have you forgotten Obama’s ‘pen and phone’?!?”

                      Do you not understand that Obama’s phone was effective because he could call on supporters in Congress?

          2. It doesn’t make the system any less absurd.

            However you feel about it, that’s how the system works here.

            Move somewhere else that employs mob rule if you’re into that. It’ll be a win-win for all of us.

            1. What dose “mob rule” have to do with it? That’s one of the most brainless arguments out there. Does the fact that governors are elected by popular vote mean the states are subject to “mob rule?”

              Do you think that all the countries who elect their leaders that way are ruled by the mob?

              That’s really utterly stupid. I guess if Rush says it you believe it. Saves thinking.

              1. If the system we set up and have lived under for 230+ years is now suddenly “brainless” and “utterly stupid,” I’ll wear that as a badge of honor. Especially coming from you.

                Happy 4th!

                1. If this is an example of your ability to read for content, this doesn’t speak well for the causes you choose to support.

                  “Happy 4th!”

                  Or whatever the date happens to be.

              2. Well there is a certain element of mob rule in some states, which is why Ilya’s theme of voting with your feet is important, and why it’s important to give the states as much autonomy as possible at the expense of federal power.

                It’s no coincidence that the top 5 states gaining population are all Republican, or lean Republican Florida, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina. While the top 5 states losing population are all deep Blue: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

                And as Governor Cuomo acknowledged and lamented high taxes and redistributinest policies are certainly a factor fueling some of the out migration. And the top 2 states gaining population don’t have a state income tax, nor does the fastest growing Blue state Washington.

                1. But all those states elect their governors by popular vote, and representation is their legislatures is based on population, so I fail to see how the electoral method is a source of the differences in policy.

                  1. Yeah, Ilya fails to get that, too; It’s one of the key flaws in his foot voting ideology: The failure to understand that different places are different because different people live there, and that, if you take this world of differences, where foot voting actually works, and hit “frappe”, you end up with a world of uniformity, where foot voting is a joke.

                    1. ” Ilya fails to get that, too; It’s one of the key flaws in his foot voting ideology:”
                      “different places are different because different people live there,”

                      Of course, ignoring the fact that people are different because of the differences in where they live gives you an error in equal and opposite magnitude. People in Oregon and people in Texas are economically dependent on resource extraction, but they’re substantially different in which resource they’re extracting. Texans are extracting fossil fuels, while Oregonians are extracting forest products. This leads to their having different opinions on fossil fuel extraction and forest management. You can also see the difference between the American Great Divide… not the one at the top of the ridgeline of the Rocky Mountains but the divide between people who live in cities and people who live everywhere else.

                2. ” the top 2 states gaining population don’t have a state income tax”

                  Oregon does. But no sales tax.

      2. I think the Repubicans control more delegations than the Dems, but don’t have a majority. I think a couple of delegations are tied. And you need a majority, not a plurality of delegations.

        But if after the election the Ds controlled the House, but the Rs did have a majority of delegations, I doubt the Rs would have any way of forcing Nancy to have a vote; and I doubt even more that SCOTUS would intervene.

        If the House didn’t choose a President, then it would flip to the Senate to decide the VP, and thus Acting President. But if the Senate were deadlocked too, then it would be…..Nancy !

        1. The Twelfth Amendment seems to require that the House vote so SCOTUS would probably, rightfully, order Pelosi to hold a ballot vote:

          […] and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

          The “deny a quorum” trick likely wouldn’t work because as long as ONE member from each state is present, that state is counted as being present — and only about 20% of the states have NO Republican representatives (CT, DE, HI, MA, ME, NH, NM, RI, VI, and VT but I might have missed one or two) so presumably 80% of the states would be present – which is well more than the required 66%.

          1. What would the “deny a quorum” trick accomplish anyway. The Constitution doesn’t specify what happens if no winner of the election has been decided by January 20, but it would seem to me that the most likely solution is for the President to continue in office until the election is resolved. That certainly makes more sense than to temporarily seat a not-yet-elected opponent!

          2. “The ‘deny a quorum’ trick likely wouldn’t work because as long as ONE member from each state is present, that state is counted as being present”

            The R’s in the Oregon legislature successfully used the “flee the state” approach to lawmaking two sessions in a row to avoid dealing with a piece of legislation their financial backers opposed quite strongly.

          3. “The Twelfth Amendment seems to require that the House vote so SCOTUS would probably, rightfully, order Pelosi to hold a ballot vote:”

            The mechanism that would force the House to act would be… (presumably the same mechanism that forced Mitch to call a vote on confirming Merrick Garland for a Supreme Court seat. Which is to say a tiny voice in the back of someone’s head saying “this is what you’re really supposed to do” and nothing else.

      3. “I haven’t looked up the breakdown of the delegations, but Presumably Wirth and Rogers did, and determined that Republicans control more delegations than Democrats.”

        If they do, you’d think they might get together an choose a Republican who could actually do a good job running the government, and leave Trump fuming at the curbside. Or, being Republicans, they might not be able to find among their number a candidate who’s actually capable of the job, and pick someone more popular than Trump. Either way, I can see someone who isn’t Trump starting the job in January.

        1. “then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President”

          They can’t chose a Republican other than Trump, although I wouldn’t put it past some of the Never Trump RINOS to go for Biden.

          Which would lead to a reconstitution of the House in 2022 (RINO Removal) and Biden’s impeachment in 2023. Pelosi’s precedent of pretextual impeachment will come back to bit the Dems.

          1. ” Pelosi’s precedent of pretextual impeachment will come back to bit the Dems.”

            Yeah, they impeached the guy just because he was abusing the office of the Presidency. Not a real offense, such as being a practicing Democrat.

            1. Democrats were pushing the idea of impeaching Trump before his inauguration. But go ahead, keep pretending it actually had something to do with things he did in office.

              1. I stick to only real events.

                1. which is admittedly a pretty big handicap in political arguments.

    2. It’s not strictly about having a majority in the House, under this scenario, as the voting rules for a contingent election are significantly different.

      Rather than just a “Majority of the House,” instead each State’s delegation in the House votes, and each State gets a single vote. So, for example, the delegation of Vermont gets together (3 representatives), and decides to vote for Biden. That’s one vote for Biden. The delegation of Texas gets together, and decides to vote for Trump. That’s a single vote. A candidate needs 26 votes (ie, 26 out of 50 states) to win.

      1. Is it the existing Congress or the newly-elected Congress that votes?

        1. The new one.

  11. Sigh,

    There are a lot of scenarios like this that can be thrown around, and they’re all low odds. That being said…

    1. The most likely scenario is a faithless elector or three throwing the election. Faithless electors are surprisingly common, with 10 different faithless electors in the 2016 election (Yes 10.) Whether thrown for Biden or Trump, this is a real possibility. Either party would do a lawsuit if this threw the election.

    2. The second most likely scenario is large scale vote fraud, given a shift to all-mail in ballots, and the resulting problems we’ve seen. The election in Patterson, NJ (where 20% of ballots were thrown out). Given a large scale fraud, either party would sue, one way or another. Nevada is most likely here, but Florida is a close second.

    1. I don’t think any election result will be accepted outside of a crushing, overwhelming victory one way or the other. Even then, I suspect that a substantial group will push the narrative of widespread victory.

      1. There’s “accepting” and then there’s a series of lawsuits which drag out for months. A faithless elector case which sways the election will lead to a long, drawn out lawsuit. ESPECIALLY if the State in question fails to certify the results.

        Given the large number of faithless electors in recent history, this is a real problem.

        Imagine the following situation. A close election, where the popular vote is in favor of Trump. But Biden should “win” the electoral college by 3 votes (according to the vote in the states).

        But then you get 10 faithless electors (6 Biden, 4 Trump) in various states.

        -2 Biden electors in California vote for Snoop Dog. California replaces them with alternate Biden electors, and disqualifies them, after they had cast their votes
        -2 Biden electors vote for Trump in Arizona, because Trump “won” the popular vote. Arizona does nothing
        –2 Biden electors in Minnesota vote for Trump. Minnesota’s legislature chooses to simply remove them, before they can cast their votes, replacing them with no one
        -2 Trump electors in Texas vote for Pence, and Texas tries to say they actually meant Trump, and it was a mistake.
        -2 Trump electors in Michigan in Wisconsin are unable to cast their ballots due to “reasons” and simply cast a blank ballot.

        What happens in such a situation?

        1. Imagine the following situation. A close election, where the popular vote is in favor of Trump.

          My imagination isn’t that good.

          I could imagine Trump eking out an EC win. But a popular vote one? Not by any lawful means.

          1. Sigh. We know that you don’t really have a good imagination. Regardless of the topic.

            1. It takes an above-average imagination to see Trump winning the popular vote, now that he doesn’t have the crutch of running against Hillary, who he couldn’t manage to beat in the popular vote.
              Trump is an incompetent buffoon and uses poorly-crafted lies to try to conceal it. There are some people (mostly of low intelligence) who buy into it, but any casual examination of Mr. Trump’s campaigning shows that he doesn’t showcase his own accomplishments (possibly because they can’t find any to show off) but rather the imagined flaws of his opponent(s). He’s running an ad now that claims that Biden is too old and feeble to be President. Maybe he is, but he can drink a glass of water with one hand.

        2. States rejecting their own electors, or creating an alternate set of electors, has happened before, in the Rutherford B. Hayes election. The decision went to Congress. Although they tried to disguise this with a commission to examine the challenged EC votes, the commissioners were picked on partisan lines and made their decision strictly on partisan lines, giving the win to the candidate from the majority party in the Congress. Congress might as well have voted directly.

          But in this case, the incoming Congress will probably split the same way the present one does: Democratic majority in the House (unless they continue working to piss off every middle class voter right up to the election), a slim Republican majority in the Senate, and an easy Republican win when each state’s delegation gets one vote.

          1. ” a slim Republican majority in the Senate, and an easy Republican win when each state’s delegation gets one vote.”

            Unless they continue to piss off every working-class voter right up to the election. Which is Mitch’s strategy.

    2. ” Faithless electors are surprisingly common”

      If you look more closely, I think you’ll find that most cases of faithless electors don’t surface until the election results are known.

      “The second most likely scenario is large scale vote fraud, given a shift to all-mail in ballots”

      The claim that mail-in ballots are prone to large-scale vote fraud is not supported by actual evidence, despite the fact that all-mail balloting has been practiced for a couple of decades (depending on which state you happen to be standing in). It’s true that Republicans don’t win many elections in Oregon, but that has something to do with nominating candidates like Bill Sizemore. Possibly the most unpopular public figure at the time he was nominated, it’s a surprise to nobody with a functioning brain or even a Republican that he did not win the Governor’s office.

      1. The claim that mail-in ballots are prone to large-scale vote fraud ….

        Patterson, New Jersey, Spring 2020. 19% of ballots were thrown out due to fraud….

        1. Every election in Oregon has been run by mail for the last couple of decades. They seem to have figured out how to do it.

          1. By not allowing the losing party to examine the ballots?

            1. “By not allowing the losing party to examine the ballots?”
              That’s an interesting hallucination you’re having.

              Sorry, this time my facts are better than your fantasy.

              They have observers from every party on the ballot in the room while ballots are being processed. Which is how they recently detected a case of election fraud in Clackamas County. They caught an election worker who was marking votes on ballots where the voter hadn’t indicated a preference in some races. Note: This worker was marking the Republican candidate in those races.

              From this, we get the lesson that if you hire dishonest election workers, you might not get the peoples’ winner in the election, which is true regardless of whether you’re counting votes that came from a mail-in ballot or counting votes that came from traditional balloting.

    3. Armchair — I’m worried about widespread rioting at polling places in purple states. The Black Panthers were doing some voter intimidation way back in 2008 (in PA) and would you really be surprised to see thuggery scaring away voters at red precincts?

      1. Oh and mail in votes means no winner for a week…

        Best case and no accusations of fraud, no winner for a week…

        1. Guess again. See, for example, the history of all-mail elections in Oregon. They can actually start processing ballots the morning of the election, and announce results at 8:00pm Pacific time.

      2. ” I’m worried about widespread rioting at polling places in purple states.”

        So stop planning on rioting at polling places in purple states. The red state plan is to simply eliminate the polling places that are near voters you didn’t want to count in the first place.

  12. Sorry, that a substantial group will push the narrative of widespread voter fraud denying them their rightful victory.

  13. The electoral college, hack judges in Bush v Gore, voting by state in the House of Representatives . . . Republicans will continue to exploit behind every possible antimajoritarian device to continue to put their man into the White House, despite winning the popular vote exactly once in the last eight elections.

    1. The Supreme court was 7-2 on the Florida Supreme court acting unconstitutionally. The 5-4 split was on the remedy; Whether to allow the Florida court to have a third chance to do the right thing, (This was their SECOND slap down in the case.) or just end the mess then and there.

      1. Having previously decided that losing the election due to a recount would do “irreparable harm” to Bush. No partisanship there.

        1. Enough with the revisionist history bernard11. Bush won FLs popular vote. There were multiple recounts after the fact. All had the same result. GWB won.

          1. Ideally, you count all the votes at least once BEFORE you decide who won the election, counting all the votes AFTER you’ve picked a winner is how Russia does it.

            1. Uh huh. The objective reality is that POTUS Bush did, in fact, win the popular vote in the state of FL. Regardless of how SCOTUS ruled, that is what ‘revisionists’ seem to miss. If the decision had gone the other way, the recount would have occurred and POTUS Bush would have won (all else being equal).

              No less than three MSM organizations systematically hand recounted FL ballots in the aftermath of the election. That was all the rage 20 years ago. I remember endless stories at that time of how POTUS Bush was ‘illegitimate’. Those stories faded away in time when it was apparent the FL result wasn’t changing.

              All of this just seems so….fruitless. POTUS Trump is a billionaire. He can ‘get over’ losing and return to his previous life of fabulous wealth. I don’t think that the First Lady would shed many tears at leaving DC, either. The suggestion that he is somehow some craven power-drunk individual who will fight to stay in office because of some super-duper twisted personality disorder is preposterous. He’ll wave ‘Bye, bye’ and get on with his life.

              1. As I recall, the “media consortium” DID find a way to count the votes that would have put Gore over the top. The problem was, it was a way that nobody was proposing at the time.

                “He can ‘get over’ losing and return to his previous life of fabulous wealth.”

                The only real obstacle to this is that the Democrats are rather vengeful about 2016, and have indicated an intent to continue lawfare against him after he leaves the Presidency.

                1. Perhaps. But if the only reason Trump has not been charged criminally is “You simply MAY not, as a matter of law, criminally charge a sitting president, and you MUST wait until she or he is out of office.” . . . then actually following the law and waiting until he is out of office is not evidence of bad faith. Rather, the postponing of criminal charges would be evidence of good faith, in adherence to the existing laws or policies.
                  It seems like you suggesting a different law or policy: “We will never charge a sitting president of a crime after that person leaves office, regardless of the type of crime, and regardless of the amount of evidence.” Now, I can see reasonable policy reasons for enacting this type of law. (Although I do not agree with those reasons.) But you’d certainly agree that, currently, it’s not a law.

                  1. I’m on record saying that the idea of Presidential immunity from prosecution is a crock. Maybe it would be a good idea, maybe it wouldn’t, but there’s not one word about it in the Constitution.

                    But that doesn’t mean these threats of legal action are legitimate. The biggest indicator that they aren’t is just that they only started after he pissed Democrats off by winning the election. And they’re coming from states like NY that have a track record of abusive political prosecution and threats thereof.

              2. “Uh huh. The objective reality is that POTUS Bush did, in fact, win the popular vote in the state of FL.”

                Which is why his campaign objected to counting all the ballots before certifying the election. That’s just what you do when you think you’re going to win the election.

                1. His campaign didn’t object to counting all the ballots: All the ballots had already been counted on election night. His campaign objected to recounting over and over under BS rules until it came out “right”.

                  The final straw was the Florida supreme court letting the sorta-state wide recount be conducted without any standard, permitting the people doing the recounting to treat every ballot differently if they wanted. (That’s the thing the Supreme court ruled was an EPC violation, 7-2.) Might as well just have come out and said, “Rig the count, so we can get this thing done!”

                  1. “His campaign didn’t object to counting all the ballot”

                    They sued to prevent it, and the campaign’s lawyers successfully argued that it isn’t necessary to count all the ballots to certify a winner.

              3. “POTUS Trump is a billionaire.”

                Well, he likes to SAY he’s a billionaire, but any time anybody tries to check the math, he finds a way to blur the numbers. His actual business model requires that people BELIEVE that he is wealthier and more successful than he actually is.

                ” The suggestion that he is somehow some craven power-drunk individual”
                … is based on observation.

        2. When a candidate would suffer “irreparable harm” from counting ballots, we would normally call that candidate the “loser” of the election.

    2. The have won the “popular vote” exactly 8 times in the last 18 elections. You see I can cherry pick a date range too.

      1. That’s not a good argument in their favor… being more popular almost half the times the numbers were checked.

    3. Would you like to try that math again?

    4. Well if you are talking about winning the popular vote, Hillary didn’t either, she was under 50%, as was Bill in both elections.

      The electoral college requires a majority not a plurality, why should the popular vote be different?

      That’s a lot more elections going to the House which is not a good outcome. And going with a plurality of the popular vote has problems of its own, do we really want a president elected with 30% of the vote in a 5 way race? Trump could win an election like that too.

      1. “why should the popular vote be different?”

        Because the popular vote is split across more than 2 candidates is why.

      2. “do we really want a president elected with 30% of the vote in a 5 way race? Trump could win an election like that too.”

        Hitler _did_ win an election like that.

        1. Of course, he ran a more successful voter suppression operation.

  14. As others have stated above, Tim Wirth’s musing are pure projection and paranoia. We have spent the last 3 1/2 years hearing about how Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign, how he was Putin’s puppet, and on and on. Wirth and his minions are engaged in battlefield prep….if Biden loses, it is the Democrats and their media allies who will once again claim Trump’s illegitimacy, and attempt to justify their actions by asserting what Trump would have done (per Tim Wirth) had he lost. Projection and paranoia.

    1. ” We have spent the last 3 1/2 years hearing about how Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign”

      You keep hearing that because one set of partisans keep saying that, and it isn’t Hillary’s. They stuck with the actual truth, that Trump WANTED to collude but the Russians didn’t have any use for him. They wanted him running our country, but not if it meant that they actually had to listen to him. So they didn’t listen to him, and got what they wanted.

  15. I notice that, like 2016, no one has asked any democrats if they will accept the results of the election. Just republicans.

    1. DJT is the one already claiming there’s massive mail-in ballot fraud. That’s why they’re asking if he’s prepared to accept losing the election. Because he’s already making his excuses for not winning the election. See also his choice of actions regarding not winning the popular vote in 2016… it’s not clear he accepted losing that one, either.

      1. Well, if Democrats don’t want Republicans to think they engage in ballot fraud, maybe they shouldn’t relentlessly oppose every single form of ballot security. Cleaning up the voter rolls, signature matches, voter ID, not sending unrequested ballots to people, prohibiting ballot harvesting, even requiring people to have voted by election day; Democrats oppose them all, and are currently making a major push to have them all waived for this coming election “because covid”.

        You don’t demand that somebody get rid of all the locks on their home, and not have them suspect you’re a burglar.

        1. “Well, if Democrats don’t want Republicans to think they engage in ballot fraud, maybe they shouldn’t relentlessly oppose every single form of ballot security.”

          If the Republicans wanted ballot security for realsies, maybe they shouldn’t have dressed up all their voter suppression efforts in ballot security clothing.

      2. “DJT is the one already claiming there’s massive mail-in ballot fraud.”

        Patterson, NJ had to toss out 20% of their mail in ballots due to fraud issues. Just sayin’.

        1. And that was just the fraud that was committed so clumsily that it got caught. Tossing bundles of ballots into the mail box without taking the rubber band off, for example.

          1. Tim Pool has mentioned, more than once, that a mail in ballot was received at his house for somebody who does not live there nor requested one. The envelope specifically said it was a mail-in ballot, which seems like a super duper secure thing to do.

            1. that’s a problem of fraudulent registration, not a flaw in mail-in balloting. If it’s remotely accurate.

              1. The guy didn’t register. Didn’t request anything. Didn’t live where the ballot was received.

                It is ABSOLUTELY a problem with mail in voting. It is nothing but an invitation for fraud.

                1. That’s a problem of fraudulent registration. If you allow fraudulent registration, it doesn’t matter how you then process ballots.

                  1. …except Dems fight against all controls on registration, demanding same day registration.

                    And the person is registered to vote and never once asked for the ballot to be mailed and has not lived at the address for a while now.

                    This is SOLELY on the state. NJ fucked up bad, as per usual.

        2. If Patterson, NJ already has mail-in ballots for the 2020 Presidential election, they should have tossed out 100% of them, not just 20%. Just sayin’.

  16. Total fearmongering aimed at people that have no idea of how our government operates and turns over power. No idea of the three co-equal branches of government, and no idea how the military operates from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the most basic military units like the platoon. Let alone the States National Guards and the County and Local police. You would need the support of them all to stay in office and have to arrest the all House Reps, Senators and Supreme court justices plus many of the President’s Cabinet. No one man can just stay in power, he must have a lot of support. Not happening, not then, not now.
    Democrats declared George W. Bush would declare martial law after 911 and stay in office. Didn’t happen.
    Republicans declared Obama would declare emergency powers and stay in office.
    Now it is just getting silly. Not going to happen.

    1. Your faith that the DOJ is in good hands and not a toady is wonderfully pure, if somewhat unsupported by evidence in support of the thesis.

      1. Even at this point, there’s an active “Resistance” movement against Trump in the bureaucracy. If Biden so much as contests losing a close election, they’ll have all the excuse they need to treat him as the winner.

      2. Did you miss the PRIOR AG? Wasn’t AG Holder Obama’s “wingman”?

        1. “Did you miss the PRIOR AG?”

          Apparently, you did. His name was “Sessions”, not “Holder”.

          1. And the one before that was Lynch, not Holder.

            1. Loretta “Bill and I discussed grandkids on that tarmac. Seriously. We did. For real” Lynch? Her?

  17. Enhancing the argument’s superficial appeal is that states don’t have to use popular elections at all to choose the electors for President. Under Article II, § 1, cl. 2, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” As a legal matter, a state almost certainly could decide to cancel its popular election and name specific electors.

    Sure, but section 2 of the 14th amendment would require that state to lose almost all its seats in the House of Representatives.

    1. No, that would happen if they held a Presidential election, and prevented most people from voting, but they’re not required by it to actually decide to have a Presidential election. Constitutionally, they could pick the electors by throwing darts at a phone book, if they wanted to.

      1. Of course, if you do somehow manage to “win” the election, what are the odds that the person thus “elected” will devote any resources to examining whether or not the election was run fairly and with all the votes counted?
        We already have a Supreme Court decision holding that it isn’t actually necessary to count all the votes to decide who won an election.

  18. I’ve seen in liberal woke areas in my town signs that say “Not my President”..obviously folks who didn’t accept the last election. Could you see the outrage when Obama won and if folks had signs that said that? OMG…ha ha

    Given the Dems lack of moral and public virtue this is pretty funny.

    1. Oh, poor boy. You are confusing a metaphorical point with a literal point. You see, when people are saying this (or said it about Obama, or W. Bush, or Clinton, or HW Bush…or about Lincoln), what they are really saying is, “We disclaim this man as representing our values. We dislike this person–or, at least, a sufficient number of policy positions he holds–so much that we want to make it clear to others in this country that we do not want to be associated with him. Some may reward us for this stand, while others may punish us. OF COURSE, we acknowledge that this person still has the legal authority to sign legislation, nominate people to federal judgeships, etc.”

      Does this help? Do you now have a better understanding of how people engaged in politics speak and write?

      Once you get through your first Jr High or High School civics class, it’ll all be more clear.

    2. “Could you see the outrage when Obama won and if folks had signs that said that?”

      Yes, I did. it was called “birtherism” as the poor suckers grasped at straws insisting that Hawaii is somehow part of Kenya.

      1. To be fair to the “birthers:

        1) Obama himself was responsible for the idea that he was born in Kenya; He found it convenient enough before he ran for President to not have his biography corrected.

        2) After Hillary revived the idea in her run against him, he did all he could to keep the controversy active. All this talk about how his original birth certificate couldn’t be released, and the moment a judge finally scheduled a hearing on the merits, it turned out to be as easy as Obama himself simply asking for it to be.

        He found birtherism useful, it kept his most persistent foes chasing after something he knew was futile, instead of digging around somewhere else and maybe actually finding something damaging. Doesn’t mean they weren’t fools to fall for that red herring, but it was Obama keeping it going, deliberately.

        1. To be fair to the “birthers:

          And by that term, Brett means himself.

          1) Obama himself was responsible for the idea that he was born in Kenya; He found it convenient enough before he ran for President to not have his biography corrected.

          And by “biography” Brett does not mean a book written about Obama, but a promotional pamphlet by a literary agent that there’s no evidence Obama ever even saw, or that he would’ve had the power to “correct” even if it were important enough to do so. And of course this is not the source of the idea that he was born in Kenya, so Brett’s lying (again) when he claims that “Obama himself” was responsible for it. This pamphlet is something that was uncovered 5 years after the birther loons were promoting that conspiracy theory.

          After Hillary revived the idea in her run against him,

          More lies by Brett. Hillary did no such thing, and I don’t even know what “revived” could refer to in this context. Nobody was talking about it before Obama was running for president.

          he did all he could to keep the controversy active.

          Uh huh. Obama, unlike Trump, might be smart enough to play 3+D chess, but Obama did nothing to keep it active. Racists like Brett did. Obama didn’t trick you into it.

          and the moment a judge finally scheduled a hearing on the merits,

          This of course never happened.

          1. “And by that term, Brett means himself”

            Produce one word where I said I thought Obama wasn’t born in the US. That’s what being a ‘birther’ means.

            All I said was that it was theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. And that the actual birthers were entitled to a hearing on the merits in an actual court, with the best evidence, (Not just the evidence Obama felt like supplying.) where I was confident they would lose.

            1. I also pointed out that, between Obama and McCain, the one we knew was in violation of the natural born citizen clause was actually McCain.

              1. FRAUD!!!!

  19. A good fascist always has a plan to stay in power, elections be damned. So the media has to gin up a story like this (however implausible or here just fanciful) to keep the agitators agitated.

    If Trump loses, I predict he will leave office without any drama. In fact, he might just up and leave before the end of his term. (Can’t really blame the guy for taking his ball and going home early seeing how much the media abused him over the last 5 years.) He might not outright resign, but just leave the transition up to Pence. Maybe jam in a few more federal judges on his way out just as an f u to Biden and crew.

    1. How would jamming through more judges be an F U to Biden? One thing Trump has done amazingly well is re appointing federal judges. Okay, that’s 99% due to McConnell, but give Trump his due here. If he has openings, he’ll nominate judges. Period. The question of jamming them through (ie, without proper vetting) is completely out of his control…it’s McConnell that has, is, and will control this. Now, *HE* might jam them through as an F U to Biden and the other Democrats. If R’s lose the Senate, than change “might” to “100% absolutely will,” for obvious political and practical reasons.

      But I see no way for Trump to do this out of bad motives…because he’s been doing it all along for perfectly reasonable political motives.

      1. Yeah, POTUS Trump and Majority Leader McConnell have coordinated pretty well on judges. Now 20% of the judiciary (53 circuit, ~147 district) has been confirmed in the last three years. I enormously curious to see how that plays out for the next three decades.

        I figure there are roughly another 40 that will be confirmed between now and January 2021, putting him over the 25% mark. If he wins re-election, he may get another crack at replacing a few SCOTUS justices.

      2. McConnell stopped “jamming through” this year; The Senate confirmed fewer judges in the first half of this year than they did in December alone last year.

        Remember, the Senate is in recess in all but name right now, only doing enough work occasionally to prevent Trump from making recess appointments; The only nominations McConnell ever had much interest in “jamming through” were judges.

        1. “McConnell stopped ‘jamming through’ this year”

          His natural inclination is to keep the Senate from doing anything, if he can. That serves him well in a role as minority leader. Ideally he’ll be unemployed next January.

        2. Brett, I see it somewhat differently. Here is why. Currently, there are 79 vacancies. There are ~40 district court nominees in various stages.

          Currently, there are 17 judges listed on the Senate Executive Calendar (not all of them are district nominees, there are article 4 nominees as well). A vote could be scheduled by Majority Leader McConnell at any time. If he wanted to, he could have a vote-a-rama and confirm them all. There are now another 12 whose status will change to hearing held (their hearings were in June). There are ~20 nominees referred top committee whose hearings can be held in late July. Their status would change to ‘hearing held’ in August and could be confirmed in September. And for certain, regardless of how the election turns out, there is always November, December, and January.

          When all is said and done, I think POTUS Trump and Majority Leader McConnell will have put ~180 district court judges on the bench (just over 25% of the entire district court total) and 53 circuit court judges (roughly 30% of all circuit court judges). They’ll be around for a long, long time.

          Between now and January 2021, I see ~40 more district court judges confirmed. That is a lot, Brett.

          Part of the problem here is political. Blue state Senators are not returning blue slips. Case in point: NJ. We currently have 6 district court openings. No one POTUS Trump’s team has put forward meet with approval from either Senator Booker nor Senator Menendez. So as long as those two are there, there will be no nominee they will approve and return blue slips. That is also the case with other states as well (WA comes to mind). That is just how it goes.

          1. Again, look at how many judges he managed to “jam through” in December of 2019. He’s not jamming anything through right now, he’s actually slow walking them.

            ” So as long as those two are there, there will be no nominee they will approve and return blue slips. That is also the case with other states as well (WA comes to mind). That is just how it goes.”

            No, that’s not “just how it goes”. McConnell has scheduled votes on at least 3 judges without blue slips. It’s a ‘courtesy’, it’s never been an iron clad rule. He only observes it because he finds it convenient.

            1. Brett, my observation is that every time we do away with a tradition, it never turns out well. Just consider how filibusters turned out. They are gone. Had we had responsible adults in DC, they would have kept this tradition. The purpose was to force compromise among honorable men and women. Then filibusters got abused by dishonorable men and women, and was done away with entirely.

              1. Honestly, requiring direct election of Senators was one of the most asinine ideas this country has ever done.

                1. Agree….repeal the 17th amendment.

              2. Is the filibuster really gone?

                The traditional filibuster was to keep talking — like Ted Cruz did with Nobama Nocare, reading “Good Night Moon” to his children and the rest. I’m told in prior generations, Senators would read the DC phone book.

                If you have to have the floor to move for cloture, and I think you do, then the traditional filibuster and not yielding the floor would still work.

                1. “If you have to have the floor to move for cloture, and I think you do, then the traditional filibuster and not yielding the floor would still work.”

                  Unless the leadership can have you removed, still spouting Dr. Seuss as you get dragged off. Can you still have the floor if you’re not in the building?

              3. While I tend to agree, there’s no point in a system like this in keeping a tradition while you’re in power, that your opponent has already promised to abolish when they take power.

                That was the case, for instance, with abolishing the filibuster for Supreme court nominations; Prominent Democrats like Reid were talking about how it would be abolished after the election, back in September and October of 2016, when they were still expecting to get the White House and a narrow Senate majority.

                1. “While I tend to agree, there’s no point in a system like this in keeping a tradition while you’re in power, that your opponent has already promised to abolish when they take power.”

                  Maybe focus on doing a good job of running the country, rather than playing zero-sum gamesmanship. If you can actually do a good job running the country, the people will want you to keep doing it, and the “other guys'” big plans for when they run the country can be ignored as fantasy ranting, akin to people who say when they run the country, the first thing they’re going to do is take away all the guns and SUVs and plastic straws.

            2. Yeah, I think those were three circuit court judges, Brett. They are treated a little differently. That is why I specified district court judges (not circuit). Despite the current abuse of the blue slip courtesy, I would elect to keep this tradition. Perhaps with more honorable people elected to DC, the blue slip courtesy can work as it was intended to.

              As I understand this tradition from my civics classes, it exists to protect a state’s interest. Sort of like an indirect check by the state on the Federal judiciary.

            3. No, that’s not “just how it goes”. McConnell has scheduled votes on at least 3 judges without blue slips. It’s a ‘courtesy’, it’s never been an iron clad rule. He only observes it because he finds it convenient.

              Brett, you as usual misunderstand a situation. Yes, it’s a custom rather than a rule. And that custom has changed over the years. But the judges you are talking about are circuit court judges, where the blue slip rule has a different application. (There aren’t technically home state senators for circuit court judges.)

              He only observes it because he finds it convenient.

              You still haven’t explained your nutty conspiracy theory here. Why is it “convenient” for McConnell to not do the one thing he does that Republicans approve of him doing?

              1. ” Why is it “convenient” for McConnell to not do the one thing he does that Republicans approve of him doing?”

                McConnell enjoys broad support among his partisans for his tendency for inaction. It’s his default approach to anything.

      3. If the R’s can’t hold the Senate, some of those judges might not stay judges for very long. That’s the problem with “jamming through” impeachable judges as a partisan tactic.

        1. What, are you imagining that the Democrats aren’t just going to take the Senate, but reach 2/3rds of the seats? Member, while the House can impeach with a bare majority, it takes a supermajority to convict.

        2. That will set an even worse precedent than Pelosi did, and I like to think that the legal establishment (as a whole) would rise up in protest.

          1. “I like to think that the legal establishment (as a whole) would rise up in protest.”

            You think they’ll protest removing corrupt judges? Doesn’t say much about your view of America.

    2. “If Trump loses, I predict he will leave office without any drama.”

      If Trump loses, he’ll leave kicking and screaming the whole way. Doing anything with no drama just isn’t his brand.

      1. IF Trump loses, he’d be wise to issue blanket pardons to himself and absolutely everyone involved in his administration and I can assure you that will not be considered “without drama.”

        1. Issuing pardons to everyone will be non-controversial. (In the legal sense, not in the political sense. Handing out pardons like they were complimentary breath mints seems to be one of the presidential powers that seems the most straightforward.) Now, people will yowl about the worst of these pardons. To this day, I complain bitterly about Clinton’s Rich pardon. Indefensible, IMO, and it forever changed (confirmed??) my opinion about that president. But *of course* Clinton had the legal authority to do this.

          The only exception re pardons is, of course, if Trump were to try and pardon himself. While there are some legal experts who argue that a president has the authority to do this; most experts disagree. I think we all agree that any president who did pardon himself would see that effort challenged, and there would be a 100% chance that it would end up in the Sup. Ct. I’d love to see Thomas and Alito making the argument in favor of Trump.

          But Trump pardoning himself sounds like a Democrat’s wet dream. Totally implausible and ridiculous to think any president would have the chutzpah to try this. Which means that Trump almost certain *will* try, of course. Bring your popcorn; it’s gonna be a hell of a show!

          1. ” I think we all agree that any president who did pardon himself would see that effort challenged, and there would be a 100% chance that it would end up in the Sup. Ct.”

            There’s the fun part wherein the President absolutely lacks the authority to issue anyone a pardon for crimes of state jurisdiction. He’s probably safe in Florida in 2021, but NY doesn’t seem to feel like giving him a pass on his way out.

            Whether or not Trump’s successor in the WH feels any hypothetical interest in honoring his hypothetical attempt to pardon himself is not very hypothetical; I’m betting “no”.

            1. New York is big on political prosecutions. So, yeah, I’m pretty sure if Trump loses this fall, by next year some NY prosecutor will try to bring him up on charges for SOMETHING.

              1. It’s not like they’ll have to look very far for something to charge him with. They can basically continue where they left off four years ago, when Trump and his companies also used to get civilly or criminally prosecuted for things on the regular.

              2. ” I’m pretty sure if Trump loses this fall, by next year some NY prosecutor will try to bring him up on charges for SOMETHING.”

                Because there are so many fraudulent operations he’s engaged with, it won’t be hard to find one they can prove?

  20. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.ESd I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.
    For more details………………Click For Full Details.

  21. It has all been tried before by the founders – and losers – of the first democracy, the Ancient Athenian Greeks.

    Read and understand Mogens Herman Hansen *The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes* (Blackwell 1991) translated from Danish by J. A. Cook. i

  22. “I believe that Supreme Court Justices will not support actions transparently designed to thwart the will of voters”

    So you think things are different now than they were in 2000, when that exact thing happened?

  23. Wow.

    Tinfoil on sale at Walmart.

  24. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise u……Click For Full Details.

  25. It would not be bad at all to accept some wisdom of the anti-immigration ethno-state called Wakanda. The basic wisdom consists of knowledge that migrants brought their problems with them. No hatred was left behind. No wrong was forgiven or even forgotten.HERE?Click For Full Details.

    1. That state had a superhuman to lead it. Ours is currently limited by being run by a guy at the other end of the bell curve.

  26. If Trump keeps getting his SS detail quarantined, I’m not sure he’ll live through his first term. Not that I’m suggesting this as a desirable outcome. Getting himself assassinated would be his last, greatest act of incompetency and disservice to the nation.

  27. As a businessman Donald Trump was able to walk away from losing as a winner. It was usually those holding his debts that lost. I would expect little difference if he loses the election. He will walk away with a pension, security for life, and plenty of opportunities to make more money. The American people will be left divided, with a damaged economy, and little to show for the four years of his Presidency. Trump has little interest in the job, he likes the prestige, but hates the work. I suspect he will leave easy, likely with sour grapes.

  28. It would not be bad at all to accept some wisdom of the anti-immigration ethno-state called Wakanda. The basic wisdom consists of knowledge that migrants brought their problems with them. No hatred was left behind. No wrong was forgiven or even forgotten.HERE? Click For Full Detail.

  29. “Some might say that the true lesson of Bush v. Gore is that Supreme Court Justices will do whatever it takes to have their preferred party win presidential elections. ”

    The only people who say that never actually read the court’s decision. Its clear from the reading that Florida’s state supreme court acted unconstitutionally and the SCOTUS slapped them down for it.

  30. One of the achievements that our country can be proud of is our history regarding orderly transition of power.

    The scenario outlined by former Senator Timothy Wirth, writing with Tom Rogers and so ably analyzed by the author of this article was not a product of their imagination but one of several possible election possibilities recently considered by the bipartisan/nonpartisan Transition Integrity Group. The Group of over 60 participants “war gamed” various scenarios and considered potential challenges from all parties to stress test existing processes for the orderly transfer of power.

    I find the kind of analysis in this article and the thoughtful comments very interesting because I learn about the intricacies of these processes which are rarely used or discussed.

    The author of this article referenced a prior article by Jason Harrow which discussed the check that a Democratic governor would provide against a Republican legislature in three of the four states mentioned by Wirth and Rogers. But, if you substituted Wisconsin and Pennsylvania In the original scenario with other battleground states that have Republican legislators and governors such as Florida and Ohio, then the author’s opinion of implausibility would seem to fall mainly on his belief “that Supreme Court Justices will not support actions transparently designed to thwart the will of voters, and state legislators will not either.“

    What type of evidence would the Court look to in determining the will of the voters if the election results are void? Why wouldn’t the Court uphold the very processes put in place to resolve disputed elections?

    As for state legislators, I think there is another possibility not discussed by Wirth and Rogers or the author of this article. Can the results of a state election be voided or suspended by a presidential emergency declaration? In this case, state legislators and governors would merely be carrying out their prescribed role in a situation not of their own making.

    I have to admit that when I first read President Trump’s tweet that the Chinese were going to fraudulently influence the election with millions of mail-in ballots, I dismissed it as hyperbole. And a number of subsequent articles regarding the existing safeguards against fraudulent mail-in ballots reinforced my dismissal. But, when Attorney General Barr repeated the same implausible concerns some days later, I paused to consider the possibility that they were laying the groundwork for an emergency declaration.

    I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of this forum on the legal possibilities of using a declared federal emergency, such as foreign election interference, as the basis to suspend certifying the results of a state’s election?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.