David Corn: Trumps want to nullify election and install Trump electors

[bucolic_frolic]

Link to tweet

David Corn
@DavidCornDC
The Trump family is now calling on GOP-controlled state legislatures to nullify the actual vote and push for Trump electors. This is a dangerous moment.

1:16 PM · Nov 5, 2020·Twitter Web App

[onlyadream]

1. Oh shit. NT

[TheBlackAdder]

38. Yeah, that . . .

.



Nothing like legitimizing the voting process by installing your own electors at the last minute.

.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Isn't this something that can't happen....

[cayugafalls]

3. If they do this the people will rebel...

It will not stand.

[gollygee]

4. That's one way to get rid of the electoral college

Don't think it would survive too serious of an attempt of that sort. As I said in another thread, this is all political theater. It's a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Alpeduez21]

28. If this works

all thoughts of voting as normal go out the window. The electoral college will be gone but so will democracy. The very concept of American governance is at stake. If the lazy lying steaming pile Hump wins, and it doesn't matter how repukes achieve victory, we are under a dictatorship. To think that this will eliminate the EC and then voting will be done solely by popular vote blithely ignores the seriousness of the danger that threatens us.

[gollygee]

30. It won't work for trump

But too much attention at this attempt of his is huge kindling for the fire to get rid of the electoral college.

[SergeStorms]

42. Will Trump ever get the blood off of his hands?

I'm going with the Macbeth theme here. It's not often Shakespeare comes up in election conversations.

[Under The Radar]

5. Now that is the ultimate loyalty test right there!

This is going to be fun to watch.

[kwolf68]

6. Mark Levin

is one of the reasons this nation is so fucked up.

[GoneOffShore]

10. Thank you. Times like this when I wish replies here had 'Rec' or 'Like' options.

[Ohioboy]

34. You got that right

[lagomorph777]

7. GOP legislatures in newly-blue states are in a precarious position if they try that shit.

[Renew Deal]

8. That's a good way to set off riots

or worse

[onlyadream]

9. Oh shit.

But the Supreme court ruled against this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-states-stop-faithless-electors-rogue/story?id=71628464

[bucolic_frolic]

15. That's a different issue

Trumps are claiming the PA State Legislature, Republican, can replace the voted electors with their own slate of partisans.

[Thekaspervote]

17. This is not a different issue

https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

[getagrip_already]

46. It is a different issue....

In this case, the PA SoS would, per law, submit a slate of electors based on the certified results. What the trump camp is proposing is that the republican lead state legislature issue it's own slate of electors (hand picked to vote for the idiot) and submit that list to the senate.

Now you have a contested slate of electors, which the senate must resolve. It can only count the votes of one slate.

That is different than no electors being submitted, which could result in biden not getting to 270 and triggering a house vote.

[Windy City Charlie]

11. They're moving the goal posts

All Trump is trying to do is to continue extending this date-wise. At this rate, Inauguration Day might be rather intense at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[liberalmuse]

12. Good luck with that, traitors!

And this will give us a good reason to ditch the Electoral College. I hope Twitter bans anyone suggesting this authoritarian, fascist power grab.

[world wide wally]

13. Mark Levin has no business talking about the Constitution

[BusyBeingBest]

14. The End of the Great Experiment.

[Oneironaut]

16. Why have elections, then?

If you don’t like the result, do like we did and wait until the next one.

Doing this once means that other states will start having faithless electors. Then, voting essentially becomes meaningless.

Republicans are going to collapse our country into Fascism if they’re successful.

[kairos12]

40. Not a chance.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Nonsense- state legislatures cannot unilaterally appoint electors, must get governor's signature

Both federal law and state election codes state the executive appoints electors based on certified results by SOS. The election code is created by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. Any amendments, revisions or changes would have to go through the same process.

Don’t believe me? Would you believe Laurence Tribe, who references existing law and prior rulings, including SCOTUS:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e70e52c7c72720ed714313f/t/5f625c790cef066e940ea42d/1600281722253/State_Legislature_Paper.pdf

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/09/state-legislatures-cannot-act-alone-in.html

https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

[Thekaspervote]

19. Yup yup yup!!

[halobeam]

33. Thank you!

[getagrip_already]

49. disagree - it's called a contested slate of electors - and would be a nightmare....

It's a different issue than you have linked to above.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-constitution-and-contested-presidential-elections

But what happens if a state provides a second slate of electors named by its legislature or a state’s governor refuses to sign the state’s election certificate in a dispute over ballot counting? Ned Foley, a constitutional election scholar from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, has written extensively about such scenarios.

“The procedures for handling a disputed presidential election that reaches Congress are regrettably, and embarrassingly, deficient,” Foley wrote in 2019 for the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which Foley calls “astonishingly messy,” could lead to competing interpretations within Congress of what actions it can take on January 6. Foley also notes there are some historical arguments parts of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that are unconstitutional and there could a role for the Supreme Court to settle these disputes before January 20, 2021, when the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires the new President to take the oath of office.

In that scenario, the Speaker of the House would serve a president if Congress has not certified a winner of the 2020 presidential election and remain in that role until Congress does so.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. It's a waste of effort to send an alternate slate, since that would result in President Pelosi

And it would likely be stopped in court before it got that far. Like I said, it’s nonsense only being speculated about on the fringes- not even Trump or Rudy are suggesting this, and no other GOP legislators are proposing it.

[getagrip_already]

56. It would inject chaos and cripple the executive branch for months - even "if"

pelosi were somehow appointed an acting potus. Mcconnel would refuse to even hold a single confirmation hearing. He would refuse to support any spending bills effectively shutting down the govt.

And all the while trump and the gop would be inciting violence and unrest.

That would suit trump and mcconnel just fine I suspect, because putin would support it.

But there is no reason the senate couldn't just vote to accept one of the slates. The legislatures. We don't control the senate. Mcconnel will.

So they don't care either way. Is that not clear at this point?

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. Doesn't work that way- any Senator and any representative can object to a slate

Then the joint session votes to sustain or overrule the objection; if house and senate do not agree, it’s a stalemate, and you get president Pelosi. (Yes, I know it could throw the decision to the house, but Pelosi could stall/block that until January 20).

Meanwhile, the government shuts down and the economy collapses, and the US dollar is no longer a reserve currency, all while COVID runs rampant and uncontrolled.


It’s not going to happen.

[roamer65]

57. They want to force it into the House of Reps.

Especially if the state delegations of Reps are still leaning Repuke.

[getagrip_already]

58. I think they just want a shit show......

There are a lot of reasons it won't go to the house, but it can still be messed up and shut down the govt for years.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. That's been discussed for awhile, so I'm not surprised.

They will stoop to anything to be anti-democratic if their power is on the line.

[SergeStorms]

43. It's not just their power....

that's on the line. Quite possibly financial ruin and incarceration are on that short list as well. We can hope, right?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

44. Yes.

That definitely helps explain Trump's desperation!

[Straw Man]

59. Well, it's mostly their power that's on the line.

Trump will never serve a day behind bars. Putin, or possibly Erdogan or the Saudis, will give him asylum. He already has his contingency funds squirreled away somewhere.

[yellowcanine]

21. That's that crazy ass Mark Levin, not the Trump family. Oh, Junior retweeted it so it is correct.

[yaesu]

22. pipe dream, next...nt

[ffr]

23. It's all slipping away for them.

The election.
Their grift.
Reality.

I hope the mobsters that control them won't want their loose mouths flapping too much after they're relinquished to private citizens again. That could get ugly. Watch out for that iced tea you ordered fellas!

[jalan48]

24. In Pennsylvania, Republicans Might Only Need to Stall to Win

“Pennsylvania, like Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Michigan, isn’t only a battleground state,” Mark Medish, the co-founder of Keep Our Republic, told me recently. “Pennsylvania has a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature. This political division sets up a potential dispute over who, in a contested election, can appoint special electors.” In Pennsylvania, even if Democrats win the popular vote, Republicans could contest the results, arguing that various procedural aspects are illegitimate. Court cases regarding the election could end up before the Supreme Court, which will be filled with Trump appointees and likely to rule in his favor. But Republicans don’t even have to win; all they have to do is stall. If the vote is not certified by December 8th, the Republican-controlled legislature could appoint electors, who would likely cast their votes for Trump.



https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/in-pennsylvania-republicans-might-only-need-to-stall-to-win#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-homepage_0098f506-b60b-425c-9051-0cbacf1d6262_popular4-1

[Efilroft Sul]

27. Ignore the ruling that goes against counting of the vote.

Channel your inner Andrew Jackson, no matter how much you may loathe him, and dare the court to enforce its ruling.

Keep counting and quit playing nice.

[jalan48]

29. I agree with that. Stop playing nice with these thugs.

[Pepsidog]

39. I thought Tribe said it wouldn't work in Pa cause the Governor is a Dem and wouldn't sign off.

[getagrip_already]

51. see number 49 above...

The issue they are calling for is a contested slate of electors. When the sos and governor approve one slate, and the legislature claims voting errors and submits it's own slate.

Then it gets messy. Goes to scotus, and really gets messy.

Hopefully it won't matter, with enough ev's in the bag. But realize we won't control the senate on the 6th.....

[struggle4progress]

25. That's a good way to have a majority of Americans kinda irritated

at absolutely everyone who seemed to have supported it, for years and years and years to come

And by kinda irritated, I mean "wondering every night when's a good time to fill various skulls with fragments of lead or wire dynamite to various cars or burn down various houses while the inhabitants sleep"

[jayschool2013]

26. It's not the "Trump family"

It's the "Trump CRIME family." Sheesh.

[Kahuna]

31. This is what I have always feared. Trump can't steal the election by himself...

It will take republican electors to do it for him.

[NoMoreRepugs]

32. Not going to happen.

[Ohioboy]

35. Can they do this after an election has started?

[StarfishSaver]

47. No

[Kaleva]

36. Mark Levin is a RW Whacko and not part of the Trump family.

Just because Don Jr. retweeted it, doesn't mean anyone in that family is actually seriously considering it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. In the sense that Trump Jr is not a serious human being, perhaps

but in his capacity as Trump icon and someone who Republicans say they would consider as a presidential candidate, he is purposely sending the message to the far-right Republicans. It's not the family who'd consider it, it's the Republicans in state legislatures.

[angrychair]

37. completely insane and self-destructive

Republican legislatures overruling their state's popular vote to force a win for trump would be tantamount to civil war.

To be very clear: Doing that would be insane.

[Tommymac]

41. Fuck Trump's Gaslight. What he is calling for is a Civil War.

The US Constitution AND The State Constitution's don't work that way.

We are a Nation of Laws.

Such a dumb Killler Clown.

[StarfishSaver]

45. This blatantly violates federal law. Not likely even Trump courts would rule otherwise

https://campaignlegal.org/update/can-state-legislature-overturn-presidential-election-results

[getagrip_already]

52. uhmm, no, it just works between the lines....

See my post above. Google contested slate of electors. That is what they are trying to do.

[burrowowl]

50. Interesting post and comments

[jmowreader]

53. That would lead to the end of "Republican legislatures" in any state where it happened

My First Rule of Politics: an elected official's first loyalty is to his seat.

If the Republicans in blue states attempted to ignore the will of the voters and install Trump anyway - something I don't even think is possible - there would be massive recall efforts next year and widespread defeat of the traitors that did it in 2022.

[JohnnyRingo]

54. If they can get away with this I think it would have been done before.

Am I wrong?

It may be an attempt, but even "Trump judges" would have a hard time nodding their heads in approval of nullifying an election and have the republican party decide the winner.