I KNEW IT! God dammit! Greg Palast: "Prepare for November's Quiet Coup"

[Eliot Rosewater]

https://mailchi.mp/gregpalast/prepare-for-the-quiet-coup?e=5d03df7a77

But now, Georgia has de-criminalized rejecting the vote count. If this November’s vote, as polls now show, goes against him again, Trump won’t even have to make the call. Because, on August 6, the GOP majority on the State Election Board voted itself the right to reject the vote of any county if, in the MAGA-nauts view, a county board of elections did not conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into the county’s voting process.

EDIT

The POINT of spreading this TERRIBLE news is they made it the law there...they CAN do this.

They WILL do this if it means putting the traitor in office and they will worry about House seats later, when no laws matter anymore

They have to believe WE WONT accept them doing this...They have to believe we MEAN FUCKING BUSINESS

[KPN]

1. Time to ready the DoD?

This SCOTUS won’t save free and fair elections, that you csn count on.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Only way to stop this is to signal to them now that our response

Will be commensurate to that which one does when democracy is being attacked by an enemy.

Now we know why he tells everybody he has something up his sleeve.

[Think. Again.]

10. I have to agree, the DOJ needs to make strong public statements that they are prepared...

...to confront this with full force at the first sign of questionable activity.

But, we still can not depend on these people acting rationally, so we need to actually BE prepared for anything and everything.

[calimary]

76. Another way to stop this is to make sure EVERYBODY knows about it.

Make SURE it's FAILED as a "best-kept secret"! I'm starting to think that Project 2025 is on the ropes - or getting close to it. The exposure to it, drawing everybody's attention to it, digging into it, starting to pick it apart, all that is what the bad guys DO NOT WANT. I think the schemers and anti-democracy fiends behind it wanted to keep it secret. I can't help but suspect that the master plan was to slip it into trump's hands (or his people's hands) after he'd won, so he'd be able to start implementing its Neanderthal ideas as soon as he took office.

I think the worst thing that's happened (or one of the worst) for Republicans is exactly THAT. We weren't supposed to know or find out about Project 2025, much less this far BEFORE an important election. Word got out about it. (THANK GOD!!!) And it stopped being the Far Right's deep-dark secret. And the public began to learn just what a pile of shit it is. And how it offers NOTHING that would help anybody except for white men. And it seemed to be aimed at turning the clock AND the calendar back at least a century or two, before women were uppity and there was no chance that the Oval Office would EVER be in the hands of ANYBODY except a white man. But they got found out.

OMG.

O. M. G.

Dear God in Heaven, did we EVER dodge a bullet there...

MAYBE.

Hopefully.


But that is, of course, provided that Vice President Harris and Governor Walz WIN in November.

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. Great comment

[Zoomie1986]

115. Book readers

There was some attention out there about it before the advanced reader copies went out, but it all exploded into the national conversation thanks to the book-readers who got their hands on the ARC. A lot of those people are highly influential as book reviewers.

[liberalla]

87. I'm now worried that this idea will spread to other State Election Boards

Especially with TSF announcing the GA people's names and praising them. It's inviting other Maga election boards to replicate the GA action.
Damn!

[Rebl2]

101. Me too

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

106. I'd be more surprised if other states didn't

copy this.

[KPN]

88. That sounds right. I agree -- as hard as it is to even imagine.

It’s stuff like this that convinces me there is no God — at least in the Christian sense.

[Rstrstx]

8. Fortunately the President can now act with official immunity

Don’t like what they’re doing in Georgia? Lock ‘em up.

[birdographer]

41. This would indeed be the time to use that new power. n/t

[KPN]

89. Good point. I'm sure Biden would do that. But

would this SCOTUS find a way to weasel around that? We would be foolish to trust that .

[KPN]

90. I like it. But will the DoJ and DoD go along?

Im not convinced. But I crrtainly hope to hogh heavens so,

[Zeitghost]

110. That is not how that works

They would be out of jail as soon as they could get in front of a judge.

Immunity doe not give a President dictatorial powers, it give them a get out of jail free card.

[Rstrstx]

117. Ok, so when he arrests people for not doing their job

He’ll cash in his get out of jail free card.when he sends them to Guantanamo.

[Zeitghost]

119. Possibly

If the illegal action is an official duty. That said, the part you're missing is that those who are illegally arrested would be let out of custody immediately.

[wnylib]

54. The Georgia law on this is contrary to federal law that protects the right to vote

because this Georgia law gives the state the right to disenfranchise voters.

But, I agree that we can't count on SCOTUS to rule justly on this.

Would it help if we place extra Dem observers and maybe even federal marshalls at vulnerable districts and counties, i.e. where there are large numbers of registered Dems? And POC, because we know that they will be targeted for rejecting their votes as likely Dem voters?

[KPN]

91. Good questions. I hope the organizational elements of our party are fully prepared to do so

[wnylib]

92. I am very sure that President Biden is fully aware of what malarkey

the MAGAs are up to and will not tolerate it. I think that he probably discusses strategies on it with advisors in his cabinet and in Congress.

[KPN]

93. Yes, good point. I think and hope you are right.

‘A cant imagine that he and his administration and the party are all not over this. I just worry there are renegades within the executive branch as a whole who may work to undermine precautions.

[90-percent]

118. American Bar Association

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2024, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Didn't they recently say they were planning to monitor election results real time on election day?.
-90% Jimmy

[wnylib]

120. Yes. Yesterday, after my post, I saw video about

the ABA having an "army" of people ready across the country to be available for any legal problems that come up.

[GreenWave]

2. Palast pointed out years ago that Bush's TEXAS got to purge FLORIDA voters.

I believe nearly 200,000 got purged. So Florida can play stupid. "We didn't do it. Texas did!"

[GoreWon2000]

64. Repug connected Choice Point purged Florida voters in 1999 and 2000

Having spent 15 of my more than 20 years working on dem campaigns in Florida, I can say that it was the heavily repug connected company Choice Point that carried out the wishes of Florida's corrupt Jeb/Harris felon purge that illegally removed more than 50,000 legally registered, mostly African-American dems from Florida's voting rolls in 1999 and 2000 by wrongly identifying them as felons. Choice Point followed the corrupt Jeb/Harris instructions of removing similar names, not exact names despite telling Jeb/Harris that removing similar names rather than exact names would result in the removal of legal voters who were not felons. Jeb'Harris ordered Choice Point to remove the names. Greg Palast is the one who broke this story days after election day 2000. This illegal act by Jeb/Harris is now known as the "felon purge". Choice Point has since been bought out by another company. Big purges of dem voters especially of color is now standard operating procedure for repug controlled states because of Jeb/Harris never being prosecuted for their "felon purge".

[Cha]

4. Yeah Prepare.. And Head it OFF.

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. I have been trying to sound the alarm everywhere

That if we don’t audibly make it clear now that our reaction to this will be a physical reaction of defending the country, they’re going to do it.

[Think. Again.]

11. I believe they will try it anyway.

[Cha]

18. And, I Thank You for That.. Marc Elias is Fully Aware..

Thank Goodness!

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

5. The obvious way to overcome any such obstacles is

to win so big they don't matter. If North Carolina and Ohio are in play, perhaps a couple others are too.

[Think. Again.]

12. Not if full state's votes aren't certified, or maybe even not tallied.

[TommyT139]

33. Yep

I think people don't understand this. An overwhelming Harris Walz win could be sabotaged by any one of the traitous elctor boards declining to certify.

Any two or three rethugs could invalidate the votes of hundreds of millions of us.

[wnylib]

58. A clear violation of the federally guaranteed right to vote

because it disenfranchises voters who have cast their ballots.

[GoreWon2000]

65. It didn't matter in 2000

repug controlled SCOTUS stopped the legal Florida vote count in 2000 because they knew bushthief would loose if all of the uncounted votes were counted. My concern is that the maga SCOTUS now will do the same thing in 2024.

[wnylib]

83. I remember that very well. I was following the reporting on that

which Greg Palast published. He participated in a few online discussions about it and I exchanged a few e-mails with him on the subject. I was also a participant in a Yahoo discussion group that developed from a Yahoo article on the 2000 election. That political discussion group continued for 12 years afterward, through the Bush regime and up to the Romney vs. Obama election before Yahoo finally disbanded it.

So I know not to count on SCOTUS. That means that other branches of govt might need to take action, even if that action is contrary to a SCOTUS ruling. That is a scary and dangerous thing to do, but if SCOTUS abandons its responsibility to protect and preserve the laws and constitution, as well as the rights of citizens, in favor of supporting a coup, then acting against such a ruling is morally and legally valid, IMO. It is a very grave thing to act against a high court ruling, but in the face of imminent danger to the entire government system, the President and Congress would be right to uphold the constitution and government that they are sworn to protect and defend.

The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 have already declared that they are carrying out a revolution against the existing form of government. Kevin Roberts has said that it will be a bloodless revolution IF the left allows it to be.

We will not allow it.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Writ of Mandamus time?

A writ of mandamus (/mænˈdeɪməs/; lit. ''we command'') is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action.[1] They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when they are denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus

[wnylib]

60. Say what? Since when is voting not a right guaranteed by federal law and the constitution?

[Eliot Rosewater]

61. Here

https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/

If you were to look for a right to vote in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, you might have trouble finding one.

[wnylib]

79. You have read the rest of the link and not just the part that you copied

into to your post?

The federal government has the authority to protect the rights of voters. Specific voting rights are protected by the constitution and federal law, i.e. the right for people of any race to vote, the right of women to vote, the right of 18 year olds to vote, the right to vote without paying a poll tax, the right of people with disabilities to vote.

The actions being planned by MAGAs would disenfranchise the right to vote of thousands of people in a state in the above categories. If the plans were carried out by other states, then millions of voters in protected categories would be disenfranchised in violation of federal law and the constitution.

Furthermore, the calculated, coordinated plan by several states to intentionally withhold certification of state or county certification on flimsy claims of irregularities -plans made BEFORE voting has even started - amounts to a conspiracy to interfere with the election results and to overthrow the system of government. That is a federal felony.

So there are legal grounds to take either preventative actions before the election or punitive actions after the election against the conspirators.

[Zeitghost]

111. We have no federal right to vote for President

Each state is allowed to choose how they select EC electors. All have chosen a public vote, but they are not required to have one.

[wnylib]

114. Of all the responses that I've had on this thread regarding the right to vote,

yours is the only one that gives a clear cut answer. Since all states have decided to use the people's votes for choosing the electors, I mistakenly thought that it was a universal federal law to choose them that way.

But, since the states choose electors through public voting, isn't it disenfranchisement of the voters to refuse to certify votes? There must be a law in each state that says that electors are chosen by popular vote. If individuals refuse to certify votes in their state, aren't they violating their own state laws?

If districts in a state are selectively chosen to deny certification, isn't that a denial of federal voting rights laws? Example: suppose election officials in Michigan refuse to certify votes in Detroit because Detroit is predominantly Democratic and the election officials want Trump to win. Michigan, by law, chooses electors by popular vote. A large number of voters are women. Women are guarenteed the right to vote by the 19th amendment, so refusing to certify Detroit's votes disenfrachises women voters in Detroit. Same for the large number of Black people in Detroit. It not only disenfranchises Detroit voters, but other voters in MI too, since the state votes can't be certified without receiving certified votes from every district and precinct in the state.

Also, since several states have planned on doing that, aren't they engaged in a conspiracy to create chaos and overturn the outcome of an election? It's the same party responsible for the J6 insurrection and they are affiliated with the Heritage Foundation which produced Project 2025. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation has said that Republicans are bringing a revolution this election year that will be bloodless IF the Left allows it. Isn't that evidence of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government?

[TommyT139]

36. In a state where the govt is red top to bottom...

...who would command the treasonous electors to do their duty?

And since the Constitution gives states the power to run their own elections, the federal government couldn't do a darn thing.

[wnylib]

62. Not true. The constitution gives people the right to vote.

Federal law takes precedence over state and local laws regarding federally protected rights and freedoms.

[TommyT139]

96. Not according to Marc Elias (and many others)

As you suggested up-thread, it's worth reading the entire essay he posted on this topic. It begins:

If you were to look for a right to vote in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, you might have trouble finding one. Surprisingly, nowhere in the original text does it say that U.S. citizens have a right to vote. Instead, much of the government’s authority to protect voting rights stems from amendments adopted following the civil war and legislation passed during the civil rights movement. But thanks to a voting-rights skeptical U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate’s failure to pass new voting legislation, this authority has been severely weakened.

Marc Elias ends by calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure a right to vote -- which would not be needed if we already had that right.

Another important step would be to pass a voting rights amendment to finally enshrine an explicit right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. In the world’s oldest modern democracy, it’s the very least we can do.

Source: https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/


Personally I think he's the smart one in the room, but he's far from the only one to have this read. A decent general backgrounder is from the NYT, Oct. 26, 2022.
"Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Vote? The Answer May Surprise You."
Archive link: https://archive.is/hzu0z

For a more detailed look, albeit compiled by a group of law students, I found this article very helpful. It goes into just how complicated and varied voting access is in different states.
"The Right to Vote: A Constitutional Guarantee or Privilege?"
https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/2019/09/17/the-right-to-vote-a-constitutional-guarantee-or-privilege/

[wnylib]

97. I think that Elias is a good enough lawyer that he could argue

on behalf of the voters whose voting rights are specifically mentioned in constitutional amendments and protected by US Federal law. If state election officials refuse to certify an election, they are disenfranchising all the voters in the state who are protected under federal law and the constitution. Since that includes POC, all women, 18 year olds, and people with disabilities, it would likely be 50% or more of voters in the state. The only people not specifically mentioned in the constitution on voting rights are White males, although you might argue that by specifically setting the voting age at 18, any citizen 18 or over has a right to vote, just like any natural born citizen of 35 or older has the right to be president.

But, aside from voting rights, conspiring in advance of the election to not certify a state's election, as is happening among members of one party in other states besides Georgia, is a conspiracy to overthrow an election and the federal government. Add to that the fact that an organization affiliated with that party, the Heritage Foundation, has created a plan to dismantle the federal government, and a member of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, has stated that the foundation and the Republican candidates are bringing a revolution to the US that will be bloodless IF the left (the other party) allows it. That is a conspiracy to overthrow the US government, which is a federal felony.

So it looks like there are legal grounds to stop this political coup against the US, which could become a physical coup according to the warning from Kevin Roberts. This is the same party that already attempted a coup by physical force on J6.

I do not believe that the federal government is powerless to act against this insurrection. I do not believe that President Biden is willing to let it happen when he has taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Same applies to Democratic members of Congress (and maybe to some rational Republicans in Congress). The constitution is under imminent threat if the conspiracists carry out their plan to disrupt the election process in order to take over the government and dismantle it.

[GoreWon2000]

66. repug controlled SCOTUS took Florida's power away in 2000

to run it's election with laws that had been on the books for a century.

[no_hypocrisy]

94. But that's the point. Certain officials are/will be refusing to do their duties

arbitrarily. Just because.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

9. Some of them haven't yet learned

But it’s a lesson that some additional federal prison sentences can easily teach.

Federal election law is well-documented and quite comprehensive. It also has teeth, including mandatory prison time.

[Think. Again.]

14. That might work on reasonable people, so it probably won't work on this.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

17. It seemed to have a clarifying effect on many of them

At least during the trial and sentencing. Reality tends to hit hard sometimes.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

40. Agree. This would be an assault on a Federal process.

With huge consequences for anyone who tries to pull this off.

[Zeitghost]

112. The States have a lot of power when it comes to elections

There is no requirement to even have an election for President, the state legislature could decide to cancel the election and assign all EC votes to Tump and it would be constitutional.

What they can't do is hold an election and prohibit people based on sex or race.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. Everything I have read says the whole thing depends on a 3 judge panel, a 3 judge panel

in very red GEORGIA....I will not count on them doing the right thing.

[GoreWon2000]

67. No repugs were prosecuted for 2000.

[SunSeeker]

13. I think Marc Elias is on this. He is aware of it.

Link to tweet

[Think. Again.]

15. Let's hope the DOJ isn't going to wait for civilians to handle this.

[misanthrope]

71. Will the DOJ act with the same swiftness, focus and clarity of purpose

with which they prosecuted all levels of the 2021 coup attempt? I hope they decide on a course of action that looks a little more effective this time.

[ecstatic]

19. Ummm where TF is the DOJ?

We're back to the 1950s it seems.

It's not just stealing the vote for trump, this is a racist attack on our voting rights.

[Silent Type]

16. Palast was wrong in 2016, 2020 and 2022, but he's still kicking the same ole can. If we vote, we win.

[Think. Again.]

20. After what they were willing to do on Jan. 6, you really think everything is just fine?

[Silent Type]

22. Yes. 2020 was the perfect opporunity to steal the election, they failed even at the Supreme Court level and in states

where votes were close. Voting is the solution.

[Think. Again.]

23. Merrick? Is that you?

[GoreWon2000]

72. Coney-Barrett not on SCOTUS for all 2020 cases

Florida 2000 teaches that voting isn't enough. maga SCOTUS may well pull what Rehnquist 5 did in 2000. Rehnquist 5's anti-democracy Bush vs Gore decision gives them the cover to do so.

[Silent Type]

74. Vote. Court ain't gonna change before election. It's a lot easier to steal when the vote is only 600 apart.

[GoreWon2000]

84. Florida 2000 teaches that voting isn't enough.

It was Russian dictator Joseph Stalin who said, "it's about who counts the votes". Repug controlled states are only too happy to be the new Florida Jeb/Harris cabal. The 2022 Electoral count act reform law doesn't protect against another Jeb/Harris cabal.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Unless someone loses the keys to the National Guard armory, there won't be another Jan 6 riot,

I mean, there might be an attempted riot, followed by a sudden boom in business for DC area undertakers.

[Think. Again.]

26. I think we all know that none of us can predict HOW their shit is going to go down....

...I stand by my position that, in light of our direct experiences in their multiple and varied attempts at a coup, we must be extremely well prepared for anything and everything, in multiples.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. I wish certain folks, not you, would READ the damn thing, GA has made it LEGAL for them

to now REJECT votes in any county they want.


If the majority of us POOH POOH this possibility the magats will have nothing to worry about.

[Frank D. Lincoln]

70. "If the majority of us POOH POOH this possibility the magats will have nothing to worry about."

Do you really think Kamala Harris would put up with this? That woman don't play. If she legitimately wins, then, one way or another, she's not going to be denied what she earned.

There's no doubt in my mind that Kamala Harris is going to prevail. Mark my words. Bookmark this thread.

Unless Trump legitimately wins (which he won't), he's toast. Between now and November his poll numbers are going to be in free fall. By Election Day even kindergarten students are going to be able to recite by memory whole passages from Project 2025. If Trump thinks he's just going to be allowed to waltz back into the White House as a result of brazen Republican shenanigans ('legal' or otherwise), it's not going to work. Our side holds all the power. We've got the imperial president. We're in control of the U.S. military and the national guard. We've got Marc Elias and his team of top-notch lawyers experienced in kicking Republican ass in court. We will not accept a coup.

When we fight we win!

[Eliot Rosewater]

75. "We will not accept a coup" is what we need everyone on that side to hear

[Frank D. Lincoln]

81. Agreed 100%.

I hope between now and November Kamala Harris herself starts publicly saying it. But even if she doesn't, she will not accept a coup.

[GoreWon2000]

68. All Florida votes not counted in 2000

thanks to corrupt repug SCOTUS who stopped the legal Florida vote count because they knew bushthief would loose if all of the uncounted votes were counted.

[BannonsLiver]

105. It's a bit defeatist

Panic all caps headlines and no solutions offered to the alleged issues, just we’re doomed, it’s hopeless etc.

[dobleremolque]

21. The Georgia GOP planned monkey wrenching

of the election certification can't just apply to the presidential vote. It applies to the entire election, to the entire ballot. If Georgia's House delegation is not certified as elected, they can be refused their seats for the 119th Congress, because their election was not certified by their State.

[obamanut2012]

32. Exactly, people keep leaving that out

[Eliot Rosewater]

37. They can reject Fulton County only if they want, that is all they have to do to steal it.

What does “reasonable inquiry” mean? The same Republicans who railroaded in the “reasonable inquiry” rule, voted, the very next day, that Fulton County had not conducted a “reasonable inquiry” in 2020. While the Board cannot overturn Biden’s victory of four years earlier, they are clearly signaling that they are more than prepared to refuse to “certify” Fulton’s vote this November. If so, Fulton County’s ballots won’t count.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Congress is going to look different with zero reps from GA - no MTG!

Because that is what will happen if the state doesn’t certify their vote totals.

I think there will be lots of noise, maybe to the point that Kemp or Raffensberger will have to step in and assert authority, and maybe the electoral count act will trigger the panel of judges to settle the matter

[Think. Again.]

28. My suspicion is that they will be causing legal chaos that disrupts the entire process enough to throw it to the House.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Georgia alone cannot force a contingent election

Check out the revised Electoral Count Act - lots of new laws, including the addition of a three judge panel that can take over the authority of determining a state’s electors. The judges must render a ruling by the safe harbor date.

A contingent election only happens when no candidate wins a majority of duly appointed electors. That’s only happened when all states sent slates, but because 3 or 4 candidates earned EV’s nobody got a majority.

IMO, the only way a contingent election could happen is

1) Harris and Trump tie at 269-269 (highly unlikely)
2) RFK wins at least two swing states preventing both Harris and Trump from getting 270 (not going to happen)

The untested scenario that could potentially happen is this:

Shenanigans by MAGA election boards delay certification of vote totals past the December Safe Harbor date;
Congress does not have to accept those slates as duly appointed electors, nor do they have to accept alternate slates sent by the legislature after that date.
So, the “shenanigans” states don’t get to send electors to congress, thus reducing the total number of duly appointed electors, which in turn reduces the number required to win a majority and thus the presidency- this scenario would not trigger a contingent election.

From the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3 Electoral College Count
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

I think this scenario is highly unlikely, because of the revised ECA, and no state wants to give up their voice in choosing the president.

None of this gets talked about by pundits because a) some of it is brand new law, and b) all of it is deep-in-the-weeds, unprecedented and untested.

[TommyT139]

38. (Can't bookmark a comment)

But I want to come back later and look up explainers, which I can't do when my hands are full of oil and cleaning patches. Metaphorically speaking.

[Think. Again.]

42. You're depending a lot on only one state not certifying when multiple states could do that....

...and you're also depending a lot on the republican controlled Congress to play fair.

And who sits on this 3 judge panel? If therecs a rightwinger on it, expect more chaos.

But the 'reduced votes needed' scenario sound promising, as long as rightwingers don't do something else (?) major and unexpected to disrupt everything, which we know they are willing and capable of doing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. We are definitely headed for uncharted waters

Which is why I think Kemp or Raffensberger (or any swing state governor or SOS - can you imagine Shapiro or Hobbs putting up with this?)will step in if needed, perhaps removing/replacing recalcitrant elections boards.

If multiple red or swing states fail to appoint electors, IMO, that only makes it easier for Harris to achieve a majority of appointed electors.

It seems somebody didn’t quite think this through in their scheming to try and force a contingent election.

[Think. Again.]

49. I just hope they don't take us by surprise with something else entirely.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. They might be luckier and more corrupt than us, but we are smarter

Somebody is getting paid well to think of all the possibilities.

[Think. Again.]

51. I hope you don't mean garland.

[Fiendish Thingy]

85. I was thinking of Mark Elias

He would be involved in any litigation.

Garland might have a role, but it wouldn’t be regarding disputes between two candidates.

[BlueKota]

80. Thats a little reassuring because

those two weren't willing to go along with Donny last time and have responded pretty decisively to his personal attacks on them recently. They appear not to be fans of his and seem to have stronger spines than most Republicans in standing up to him.

[onandup]

29. I'm not as worried about this as some

Rump couldn't pull it off as a sitting president in 2020. Doing it as a challenger will be that much tougher. Plus we have Kamala handling the ballots.

Not to mention, if we win Georgia we probably have 270 without it. Probably our toughest swing state.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. They passed a law that says they can do exactly what it says, REJECT votes...

From the link

What does “reasonable inquiry” mean? The same Republicans who railroaded in the “reasonable inquiry” rule, voted, the very next day, that Fulton County had not conducted a “reasonable inquiry” in 2020. While the Board cannot overturn Biden’s victory of four years earlier, they are clearly signaling that they are more than prepared to refuse to “certify” Fulton’s vote this November. If so, Fulton County’s ballots won’t count.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. Then Harris will object, and trigger the Electoral Count Act

And the state will forfeit it’s authority to appoint their electors; instead, a three judge panel will rule on which candidate, if any, gets the state’s electors.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. And who will be the 3 judge panel in this far right red state? Far right as in most on the right.

Including judges.

[Fiendish Thingy]

86. I'm not crystal clear on the selection process

I think it’s two circuit judges, and one district judge, or vice versa.

Not sure if they are selected randomly or what.

[GoreWon2000]

73. tRump following bushthief Florida 2000 election theft roadmap

Now tRump has the anti-democracy maga SCOTUS to do his dirty work just like they did for bushthief in 2000.

[czarjak]

30. "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."

They mean it. PTL

[bluestarone]

39. The question i have is

How many OTHER red states will also try the same thing? One state will not upset the election. More harm to that state that cannot allow their ow delegates enter the House or senate. Will be interesting for sure.

[JustAnotherGen]

45. I think

NC can hold the line.

[Bev54]

43. It is still against the law and if they think their little rule is going to get them around it, they are

in for a rude awakening. Marc Elias will be right there to tear them down. If Kemp or Raffensperger had any balls they would step in right now and have that changed back.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. The difference this time

Biden. He's saved us once - he can do it again. And if it is a Presidential action - its legal.

I don't believe he will behave as a gentleman. Martial law in lawless states? I don't know.

But he's not going to allow Mr. Nobody From Nowhere take control of the country when loses. Might be GA . . . or a few states. That would be one big fat civil rights violation.

In a lawless failed state - anything can be considered. Harris could also refuse to preside over the certification - until GA gets right.

[CrispyQ]

104. Biden has pre-approval from SCOTUS to do what's needed to save democracy.

Come on Mr. President! Shoot the orange fucker in the middle of 5th Avenue, I say.

[airmid]

46. These people who certify elections have names and addresses. A thousand people out side each of their homes everyday

protesting would send a powerful message. Without violence. We are not The Right.

[Sogo]

53. But, there's real hope:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219319295

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Thanks

[mudstump]

57. The country will literally come apart by the seams if they do this.

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Hope so, cuz they are counting on nobody doing anything about it.

[roamer65]

98. Yes, it will.

Secession movements will be born right after it.

[BlueKota]

63. I believe Harris/Walz

will beat the orange fair and square. My main fear is that we are banking a lot on the Supreme Court doing the right thing because they did in 2020.

I still think it's possible they only ruled against Trump in 2020 because enough of the groundwork to pull of a coup then wasn't in place. The Magats have had 4 more years to plan.

If the election comes down to court rulings like in Bush v Gore, it's possible they will rule against Trump again. I also however, don't think we should totally dismiss the possibility that they might not. They may think they can pull it off now.

After all that has come out about what Alito and Thomas have been doing, and the immunity ruling I don't think it's a simply a baseless conspiracy theory. They've given us ample reason to distrust their motives and integrity.

As others have said our advantage is Biden will still be President, and hopefully he will be willing to do whatever he needs to do, to stop them from installing Trump, even if he loses the vote.

It might be just my anxiety talking but unless someone can definitively say there is a guaranteed way, other than depending on the SC 6, to do the right thing a second time, that can prevent this, I don't think it's a totally irrational fear.

[dawg]

113. We need to be prepared to ignore a Supreme Court ruling if necessary.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism other than the Executive Branch. If they were to issue a fraudulent and partisan ruling that would have the effect of subverting the Constitution and installing an authoritarian dictator in place of the duly elected President-elect of the United States, we should simply ignore them.

Meekly surrendering the White House is not an option. It would be a violation of the oaths of office that the President and Vice-President have sworn.

[BlueKota]

121. I agree.

If the 6 justices violate their oath to the Constitution by trying to find a way to put Trump in office on a technicality, even if he loses, I think we will have every right to ignore their decision.

[Sogo]

69. More real hope:

https://thehill.com/homenews/4807602-american-bar-association-task-force-democracy/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEmU4hleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHRUAVNm7CvLFEQ5jA7UI63OaVIllokaR9GtLpGIlBZcVd5YBb0SjY5rgvA_aem_RNCk-ryDSQpuc1quqRdTcw

American Bar task force calls on lawyers to defend against threats to democracy

...

The New York Times first obtained the group’s opening statement and report. The group has 30 lawyers and is co-chaired by retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig and former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

...

The report calls on lawyers to remain engaged in the political process by voting and ensuring their friends and family members vote. It also advocates for them to “be democracy leaders” by advocating for judges, election officials and poll workers.

The report also calls on them to volunteer in the electoral process by signing up to be poll workers, providing accurate legal information to people in their community concerned about election integrity, or joining the Election Official Legal Defense Network.

The report stressed the importance of lawyers providing counsel to clients that “must always be faithful to and consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the constitutions and laws of the states in which the advice and counsel is given,” warning that lawyers who fail to do so will be “held accountable.”

“Lawyers have the unique skills and obligation to defend democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law as each takes an oath to do just that,” the report added. “We encourage state licensing authorities to be quick to investigate and act on any such violations, especially when related to our elections.”

...

[GoreWon2000]

82. bushthief 2000 lawyer Ben Ginsburg is on this task force!

I would urge people to contact the American Bar Association and strongly object to bushtheif 2000 lawyer Ben Ginsburg being on this committee to protect democracy. Ginsburg showed no concern for protecting democracy in 2000. Ginsburg was a high profile participant in helping bushthief stop the legal Florida vote count in 2000. Several hundred thousand Florida votes sit uncounted in the Florida archives because of the anti=democracy behavior of Ben Ginsburg in 2000. The U.S. constitution and a century of Florida election law were both shredded thanks to the anti-democracy behavior of Ben Ginsburg in 2000.

[Nimble_Idea]

77. STOP THE STEAL the real fucking trashcans who will steal always projecting

lock them up!

[Kaleva]

95. Looks like you don't have trust in Biden

That he won't be able to handle this.

[Danascot]

100. It wouldn't hurt

to remind the members of the GA election board, and those in other states, what the consequences of failing to certify the vote or otherwise not carrying out their duties. Remind them now that prison could be in their futures if they interfere with the lawful process.

[malaise]

102. Stop being afraid of these clowns

and prepare for whatever they try

[Charging Triceratops]

103. If they go that far to cheat ...

it will tear the country apart. They will have their Civil War II and maybe two nations at last.
My biggest worry is that the massively corrupt SCOTUS delivers a Bush v. Gore II and the corporate media again tell us, as they did on 12/12/200, to "just move on."

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

107. I'd be surprised if other states aren't going to

do this & worse. These dirty tricks, like the fraudulent electors scheme, Judge Cannon's BS, etc. seem to be advised & coordinated--in some cases possibly by SCOTUS members.

[BrightKnight]

108. The only answer is not to permit it to happen.

Authoritarian governments only get stronger. Nobody wants to wind up with an American Putin. I hope people are planning to counter a second coup attempt before it happens.

[lame54]

109. Time for "An Official Act" from Biden

[LudwigPastorius]

116. If we can win Pennsylvania it might not matter.

But yes, this sucks.