OMG MSNBC is scaring the shit out of me.

[boston bean]

Something I thought could never happen is actually very possible.

Trump and Barr declare national emergency claiming foreign interference in the election. Hold up electors/delegates being chosen by mid December to make vote for president In electoral college. Supreme Court says since deadline passed it goes to house for selection of President. Then it goes to the house where each state delegation gets one vote.

Kicker is republicans have more state delegations than democrats even though we have more house members.

God damnit!

[Baltimike]

1. Then Nancy Pelosi gets sworn in as POTUS. nt

[boston bean]

2. Nope. Not how it works.

[Baltimike]

3. Yup...EXACTLY how it works.

You're welcome: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/03/26/coronavirus-pandemic-trump-cannot-cancel-2020-election-column/2898418001/

[Baltimike]

6. From THE CONSTITUTION

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19

[boston bean]

14. You are incorrect. You are applying a different scenario.

This is not about a vacancy. But how he could actually manipulate the secession of powers to remain president and do it constitutionally.

[StarfishSaver]

18. No.

It doesn't work that way in such a case.

There would be no vacancy, so that provision is irrelevant.

In this scenario, Trump and the Republican-controlled states would prevent the Electoral College from meeting and thereby throw the election into the House of Representatives. But in such a case, it would not be determined by a majority vote of the Members, but, per the Constitution, by a majority vote of the states. Republicans hold a majority of 26 of the 50 state delegations.

[Kaleva]

44. States do not have power to prevent electoral college from meeting

They have the power to prevent their own delegation from meeting but can't control the other states. In such a situation, as happened in 1864 and 1868, the votes of members of the electoral college who did meet are counted.

[StarfishSaver]

61. Hmmm

[Bettie]

78. Election of 1876, four states ensured that the election went to the guy who lost

both the popular vote and the EC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election

The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever. Although it is not disputed that Tilden outpolled Hayes in the popular vote, after a first count of votes, Tilden had won 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165, with 20 votes from four states unresolved: in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon, one elector was replaced after being declared illegal for being an "elected or appointed official". The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy.

An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes; in return for the Democrats' acquiescence to Hayes' election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who proceeded to disenfranchise black voters thereafter.

[Ilsa]

80. How fast can we get statehood for DC?

And what about Puerto Rico? Or Guam? Or USVI?

[Trumpocalypse]

83. Republicans control 26 state delegations in the current congress

But a vote on the election would be made by the new congress that is sworn in on January 1st. So if the Democrats can win more seats they will hopefully flip one or two state delegations.

[StarfishSaver]

84. Great point

But I don't think that it would get to that. See my thread here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213695565

[tman]

4. Then switch it off.

[boston bean]

9. No I won't. Knowledge even if it scares one is power.

Everyone should be aware of this possibility.

[brooklynite]

32. Make sure the knowledge is accurate...

We don't have a national election that Trump can stop, and even if he could, his term ends on Jan 20, 2021.

[boston bean]

33. Educate thyself. I have tried to and obviously failed you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

41. The segment on "Morning Joe" spelled out a completely legal and very possible scenario..

In which Trumpy could legally retain the presidency, even if he loses in a monster of a landslide.

It was stated that Americans take for granted that many of the norms we expect to carry us through, depend on people acting in good faith and following them.

When you have a guy like Trumpy who refuses to play by the rules, and instead makes his own, the idea of a peaceful transition of powers goes out the window.

You can probably find the segment on YouTube soon.

You should watch it.

[brooklynite]

62. I don't need to watch it; I read the actual article...

It is built on a series of highly speculative points:

1. The election is a low-margin race, with no additional States in play for Biden (AZ, FL, NC, GA)

2. The acceptable results of the Election result in a EC tie.

3. Republican Legislators in States with Democratic Governor that Biden won are willing to put their future elections on the line by refusing to certify the Electors in their States.

4. The 2021 House after a second likely Blue wave is still favorable to Republicans in the Battleground States (in my model, Dems are likely to pick up two in PA and two in NC as an example) AND that they are willing to swear loyalty to Trump for another term, but their seats at further risk in 2022.

[dsc]

75. The two in NC won't swing our state

and yes we will pick up 2 here no matter what given the redraw that was done.

[bearsfootball516]

5. Yeah...that's not gonna happen.

[Celerity]

27. Or it might. You are not an infallible prognosticator. Beware of normalcy bias.

[essme]

7. He'll quit before then

Trump doesn't want to be President anymore.

Yeah, he might just see this as the biggest "FU lawsuit of his life," but I doubt it.

[FakeNoose]

8. It could only mean one thing - civil war

Armed insurrection. Massive violent protests. Complete hysteria. Burn it all down.
Is that what the Repukes are trying to do?
No I don't think so.

They can see the writing on the wall. They know Chump isn't worth it.

[soothsayer]

15. I honestly just think we'd sit on our hands again

[FelineOverlord]

60. I honestly just think we'd sit on our hands again

We will never sit on our hands again. Looks what's been happening in the last two months in the streets of America.

If this scenario happens, Trump would end up like Mussolini, Hitler, or Ceaușescu.

It would get unbelievably ugly. Remember, Americans would have nothing left to lose at that point.

I still find this documentary absolutely fascinating:

|

[FM123]

42. Trump isn't worth it!

Behind closed doors (like Joni Ernst) the repugs are saying this more and more.

[badhair77]

10. boston, I feel the same way. I felt sick to my stomach.

We need to find the video. The extent of executive orders and national emergencies trump could use was stunning. I believe the author and the former CO senator have an article in Newsweek. But their tone is what caught my ear. ‘Terrifying’ describes the reach he could use to keep power.

[boston bean]

11. Yeah these were not fruit loops who were discussing this and they genuinely felt

Trumpass was planning this.

[Fla Dem]

58. NEWSWEEK Article

https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975

How Trump Could Lose the Election—And Still Remain President | Opinion
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH AND TOM ROGERS , EDITOR-AT-LARGE FOR NEWSWEEK
ON 7/3/20 AT 6:00 AM EDT

Was also posted by StarfishSaver at 7:5 this morning

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213692442

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Oh for Christ's sake

We could get hit by a gigantic meteor or volcanic explosion from the center of the earth.

Chill, people, chill....

[soothsayer]

13. Well, keep an eye on that dude Donoghue that Barr just promoted

He’s the receiver of disinformation from Putin’s operatives in Ukraine as they’re working to take down Biden.

Link to tweet

?s=21


Olga Lautman
@olgaNYC1211
·
Jul 2, 2020
Huh! Richard Donoghue from EDNY is moving to DC to be top deputy to Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen. Donoghue is who Putin's operatives in Ukraine are convinced will take down Joe Biden and they have been feeding him lots of disinfo. This is something to watch

[Siwsan]

16. A trump* 2nd term would make Reagan's 2nd term look like a solid patch of cognitive leadership

I don't think he'd make it, even half way through, before his deteriorating cognitive abilities make it critical to remove him from office.

[beachbumbob]

17. not going to happen

[Mr. Ected]

19. Watching Trump's poll numbers plummet and seeing no end to it in sight

Fully 2/3 of the country would be violently opposed to a Trump maintaining power via this backdoor coup.

If it was just political differences, I don't think we'd see an uprising.

But the country is against Trump for way more than just a disagreement in political vantage points. They now know he's a traitor and any shenanigans are further proof of it. Expect violence and a lot of it.

[Cirque du So-What]

20. If being scared shitless evokes no response beyond

trying to infect an internet discussion board with your fear, then I suggest your response is worse than useless.

What, in your estimation, is the best course of action? I ask in all seriousness, as it appears to be absent from the OP.

[boston bean]

24. There must be civic organization understanding this very real risk and educate others.

So, we are not caught off guard with no plan to deal with and thwart this with massive protest and legal minds preparing to fight this.

[rzemanfl]

26. Bookmarking

[Celerity]

29. [phone]

[CTyankee]

34. This was not something bb just dreamed up. It was on Morning JOe, Lots of Dems are scared shitless

this morning, including me.

Again, Boston Bean did not invent this and I don't know where you get this idea. She is not "infecting an internet discussion board." Millions of people, including me, watched exactly what she watched and are scared shitless.

It was on national TV. Deal wtih that.

[Cirque du So-What]

36. I know. Everyone, it seems, has to make a post of their very own.

I maintain that handwringing is an empty gesture that does nothing toward remedying the situation. It just adds to the free-floating anxiety permeating our culture. Indulge if you wish, but I don’t appreciate it being sowed like an invasive weed and I’ll call out egregious examples of it when I encounter it.

[CTyankee]

37. I don't think that show is interested in not warning us of a distinct possibility of a national

threat to our democracy by an out of control chief executive with ties to our foreign enemies. And I don't think they would endanger their show and their reputations, with a risk of ruining their careers, to say the least.

You seem to have a problem, not with the premise of this idea, but with the airing of it by concerned public officials. Since when has facing the distinct possibility -- a warming of a threat to our democracy -- been a bad thing? We're all adults, we can take this information and deal with it.

I think you are trying to "kill the messenger who brings the bad news."

[Cirque du So-What]

38. Uh, no

In the absence of concrete actions being taken, I prefer that people get angry at me instead of indulging in free-floating anxiety. If the situation is as dire as depicted, then shouldn’t we follow some course of action to, you know, DO something about it?

I’m doing the opposite of what you suggested; instead of killing the messenger, I want the messenger to get angry enough to stop handwringing and start doing something productive about it.

[CTyankee]

39. Get a video of that portion of the show. They had some good hard evidence to back up their claim.

Go see the video and then get back to us. Please.

[Cirque du So-What]

40. I'm familiar already, thank you

Like I said, I’d rather people get angry at me than fret over hypothetical scenarios. Go ahead; I don’t mind. Anger is more motivational than anxiety.

[boston bean]

43. Why so much passive aggressiveness?

Simply trash the thread. Why do you want people mad at you?

[Cirque du So-What]

47. Perhaps you're right. Anger won't get directed toward our common enemies this way.

I believe the best way to ensure the scenario described in the OP doesn’t happen is to get out the vote and tally up an unprecedented lead everywhere so the election results are indisputable.

I am not the enemy, but if invoking the wrath of the swarm leads to good suggestions, then it’s worth it.

[boston bean]

48. Knowing something like this is possible would make one

want to vote even more.

I am not getting your point.

[Cirque du So-What]

59. Other people need to vote too

I’ll be spending progressively more time canvassing and participating in registration drives as Election Day approaches. I won’t passing the time of day on an internet discussion board, for sure.

[boston bean]

64. Good thank you. I will continue on how I think is best

I like to provide information. As I also do many other things. They are not mutually exclusive.

Knowledge after all is power.

Thank you for your efforts.

[Cirque du So-What]

67. St. Augustine said

[boston bean]

70. Nice saying.

[MrsCoffee]

66. Well this post will surely solve everything.

Glad you aren’t wasting anyone’s time with useless posts.

[Cirque du So-What]

68. Right back atcha

[Kaleva]

45. Just because it was on tv doesn't mean it's true.

Lincoln was declared the winner in 1864 even though none of the southern states had electoral college delegations. Lincoln won the majority of the votes of the electoral college delegates who did meet.

[boston bean]

50. Did Lincoln claim the vote was tainted and challenge the

Election in the courts, delaying the convention taking place.

And if they do not meet prior to December fourteenth because the sitting presidency is using all sorts of powers and claims to prevent it, the Supreme Court would not choose the president but would follow bush v gore where that date was critical and if it were missed the election would be held by the house.

[Kaleva]

52. Every state holds their own convention.

Trump would have no standing in state court as each state runs their own election and meeting of electors.

[boston bean]

53. And.......

From the Newsweek article that prompted my viewing on MSNBC:

Trump indicates this is a major national security issue, and he invokes emergency powers, directing the Justice Department to investigate the alleged activity in the swing states. The legal justification for the presidential powers he invokes has already been developed and issued by Barr.

The investigation is intended to tick down the clock toward December 14, the deadline when each state's Electoral College electors must be appointed. This is the very issue that the Supreme Court harped on in Bush v. Gore in ruling that the election process had to be brought to a close, thus forbidding the further counting of Florida ballots.

All four swing states have Republican control of both their upper and lower houses of their state legislatures. Those state legislatures refuse to allow any Electoral College slate to be certified until the "national security" investigation is complete.

The Democrats will have begun a legal action to certify the results in those four states, and the appointment of the Biden slate of electors, arguing that Trump has manufactured a national security emergency in order to create the ensuing chaos.

The issue goes up to the Supreme Court, which unlike the 2000 election does not decide the election in favor of the Republicans. However, it indicates again that the December 14 Electoral College deadline must be met; that the president's national security powers legally authorize him to investigate potential foreign country intrusion into the national election; and if no Electoral College slate can be certified by any state by December 14, the Electoral College must meet anyway and cast its votes.

The Electoral College meets, and without the electors from those four states being represented, neither Biden nor Trump has sufficient votes to get an Electoral College majority.

The election is thrown into the House of Representatives, pursuant to the Constitution. Under the relevant constitutional process, the vote in the House is by state delegation, where each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the majority of the representatives in that state.

Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.

[Kaleva]

56. No where in the constitution does it say that every state must hold an electoral college convention

Lincoln won in 1864 by winning the majority of electoral college votes from the states that hold elections and held an electoral college convention. Past history shows that if a state doesn't doesn't hold an electoral college convention, then it really doesn't matter. A candidate just needs the majority of electoral college votes form the states that did hold electoral college conventions.

[boston bean]

69. Not sure. But not positive.

I think Lincoln won the required majority even if the other states were excluded. In other words their votes would not have made a difference. There were a total of 303 electors for the election. Lincoln won 180. States not included had seceded prior
to formation of the EC.

I don’t think the states potentially in this scenario we are speaking of today are seceding their rights to be part of the nation or election. They will have electors. And they would be included in the count to determine a majority needed to win. In other words, 270 stands.

[dansolo]

65. There is a flaw in this scenario

The majority is of the certified electors, not all possible electors. If the argument was that Trump would try to hold up certifying states that Biden wins, shifting the majority from Biden to Trump, then you might have an argument. But the whole scenario depends on the assumption that preventing a state from certifying their electors will automatically throw it to a vote of state delegations. That is not how it works. That only happens when there is a tie.

[LanternWaste]

55. I believe the OP is concerned with a potential, not an absolute.

So it seems your statement, "Just because it was on tv doesn't mean it's true" is at best, petulant irrelevance, as no one is arguing otherwise.

[Kaleva]

57. for it to even be a possibility, there has to be (supposed) truth to it.

Otherwise it cannot be possible.

and then why waste time being afraid of something that might possibly happen?

[SlogginThroughIt]

77. This is out of line.

[Chainfire]

21. Do you really think that the Republicans

would risk a Civil War in order to sustain the Donald Trump presidency?

Such a political coup would not end up being bloodless; our country would end up looking like the Northern Ireland of 1970, on steroids.

[boston bean]

25. Yeah I do.

[Celerity]

30. [phone]

[helpisontheway]

22. Okay i guess we should just cancel the election..I mean if they said

Trump/Barr are going to steal the election why vote? 🙄

[boston bean]

23. Who said that besides you?

[Buckeyeblue]

28. While theoretically possible I don't see this playing out

For a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that this type of action would put our already fragile economy into a tailspin. Corporate America would have none of this. I don't see the SC ruling favorably either--appointing Trump as president would essentially be ending its own relevancy.

Trump will either quit or get beaten in November. This 4 year expirament with a lazy, incompetent supposedly wealthy man as president is over.

Fortunately, the white supremacist, which number higher than I would have thought, played their hand for all to see. And the country responded. We are too big and too diverse to be lead by hate.

I think Trump happened because we got lazy under 8 years of Obama's leadership. We took him for granted. We didn't do the work for Hillary that needed done. We underestimated the number of white supremacists that would come out to vote for Trump. We underestimated the number of people who would vote for Trump because of the novelty of it. That won't happen in November.

[oasis]

63. 1,000,000 X 1,000,000

[SKKY]

31. Yea, I heard that as well. Fairly sobering...

...although I don't think we are anywhere near that happening.

[badhair77]

35. I'd like to believe that course of events wouldn't happen either.

Sobering is the perfect word.

[Bengus81]

46. Guess the old tired.."Trump won't leave office if defeated" no longer has traction

So this is the new one?? I'm shaking in my blue suede shoes............

[Kaleva]

49. Where in the constitution does it say the every state must send a delegation?

Past elections like in 1864 and 1868 shows that is not the case.

[roamer65]

74. I'm more concerned certain Repuke led states will cancel elections and appoint electors due to CV.

Perfectly legal and constitutional. Colorado did it in 1876 and it gave Hayes the election.

It will be gas on fire of separatism.

[Sugarcoated]

85. The anti Trump citizens of those states would never stand for that

It would be outright cheating

[DFW]

51. Who do they claim is interfering?

Trinidad, Bhutan, Andorra and Burundi?

I doubt they will be pointing fingers at the hand that has been feeding them.

[boston bean]

54. On the show they said China. China is printing fraudulent ballots.

Trump has tweeted this framing already.

[marie999]

71. Not going to happen.

Don't just read The Constitution. Also read "Library of Congress Research Service Memorandum Overview of Electoral College Procedure and the Role of Congress November 17, 2000" and "Taegan Goddard's Electoral Vote Map How Are Electors Chosen". Also, the House can elect the president but the only way it can happen is if no one receives a majority of electoral college votes. But they have to choose from the 3 people who get the most electoral votes, and in this scenario, the electoral votes aren't counted so they can not vote for President and the Senate can not vote for vice-president so The Speaker of the House becomes president at noon on January 20, 2021.

[dweller]

79. YAY !

problem solved... Nancy Pelosi to the rescue 🙂

✌🏼

[brooklynite]

72. Okay folks, I'm giving up...

That's what we're supposed to do, right? I mean, this scenario is so iron-clad there's no point in trying......

[roamer65]

73. 🦠

Hello, I’m the big wild card in the equation.

[honest.abe]

76. I dont think the Supreme Court will play along with this crooked scheme.

No way Roberts will let Trump steal this election again.

[Blaukraut]

81. It's almost like the media WANT this scenario to happen

which is why they keep giving it airtime.

[WyattKansas]

82. Bunker Bitch thinks he's going to order the military to attack Americans storming the gates?

After they all now know that he has committed traitorous and treasonous acts against the United States?

After he has been hemorrhaging support, except for his die hard radical base?

And Dumbass Donald doesn't think the stock market won't crash with his unlawful action?

[radius777]

86. +1. Fool me twice shame on me.

They stole one election, and would have no problem stealing another, especially that he now has the powers of the presidency and a thug AG to do his bidding.

Michael Cohen, who knows Trump well, said he doesn't believe Trump would leave office peacefully if he loses.

We had our heads in the sand in 2016, and it's good that smart people (credible people, not conspiracists) are thinking out of the box, considering any/all scenarios Trump/Barr/McConnell would use to fuck us.