Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Did I read that right? 75 members of the Pennsylvania legislatures just sent a letter to their congressmen and senators urging them to reject the electoral votes of Pennsylvania?

That's bad. That's very, very, bad.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware that the U.S. Congress has a role in selecting or approving electors. Can you specify?

ETA: or challenging electors
 
Paul2 said:
I'm not aware that the U.S. Congress has a role in selecting or approving electors. Can you specify?
Click to expand...

It does. When the electoral votes are counted, there's an opportunity to object, and then they go off and resolve the objection. I think each house votes on whether to accept or reject the ballots. I don't know what happens in the event of a deadlock.

I don't know if it has ever happened. Something like it happened in 1876, although I don't know the exact steps taken at that time. I don't know if it even got to the counting stage before a committee was set up to resolve the dispute.

The Supreme Court wasn't as powerful in 1876, so I suspect that today it would end up in the Supreme Court, in the unlikely event that any objection isn't squashed right away. At least one congressman has already said he would object. Mo somebody, from Alabama.

The very fact that a group of state legislators would endorse refusing to acknowledge election results is very, very, bad, even if the attempt fails. I didn't take coup talk seriously. In terms of the prospect of success I still don't, but that letter should never have happened, and those people should be thrown out of office at the first legal opportunity to do so. The sad thing is, they won't be.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It does. When the electoral votes are counted, there's an opportunity to object, and then they go off and resolve the objection. I think each house votes on whether to accept or reject the ballots. I don't know what happens in the event of a deadlock.

I don't know if it has ever happened. Something like it happened in 1876, although I don't know the exact steps taken at that time. I don't know if it even got to the counting stage before a committee was set up to resolve the dispute.

The Supreme Court wasn't as powerful in 1876, so I suspect that today it would end up in the Supreme Court, in the unlikely event that any objection isn't squashed right away. At least one congressman has already said he would object. Mo somebody, from Alabama.

The very fact that a group of state legislators would endorse refusing to acknowledge election results is very, very, bad, even if the attempt fails. I didn't take coup talk seriously. In terms of the prospect of success I still don't, but that letter should never have happened, and those people should be thrown out of office at the first legal opportunity to do so. The sad thing is, they won't be.
Click to expand...
Forbes says that both the House and the Senate must both vote to reject electors for the rejection to hold. Presumably each Representative and each Senator gets one vote, not like when the House votes in the case of no majority winner and each state delegation gets one vote, but I couldn't confirm that. Also, the "moderate" Senators (Murkowski, Collins, what's-his-face from Utah [I'm blanking]) would have to step in line for the Senate to vote to reject.

However, that letter is horrible and hopefully the representatives who signed it will pay for it.
 
Meadmaker said:
It does. When the electoral votes are counted, there's an opportunity to object, and then they go off and resolve the objection. I think each house votes on whether to accept or reject the ballots. I don't know what happens in the event of a deadlock.

I don't know if it has ever happened. Something like it happened in 1876, although I don't know the exact steps taken at that time. I don't know if it even got to the counting stage before a committee was set up to resolve the dispute.

The Supreme Court wasn't as powerful in 1876, so I suspect that today it would end up in the Supreme Court, in the unlikely event that any objection isn't squashed right away. At least one congressman has already said he would object. Mo somebody, from Alabama.

The very fact that a group of state legislators would endorse refusing to acknowledge election results is very, very, bad, even if the attempt fails. I didn't take coup talk seriously. In terms of the prospect of success I still don't, but that letter should never have happened, and those people should be thrown out of office at the first legal opportunity to do so. The sad thing is, they won't be.
Click to expand...

BTW, I wonder where this procedure of objecting to electors is laid out. I didn't see it in Article 2.
 
cosmicaug said:
It's now actually 75 wackos in Pennsylvania who are requesting that an objection be sustained "to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021".
Click to expand...

Those are all federal legislators. There has never been any doubt the US House and Senate are full of Republican nut jobs. The discussion was about state legislators who are further removed from 'The Trump'.

I'm not sure this counts. These people are petitioning the federal Congress, they are not going out on a limb with their necks exposed trying to take control of their own state's voters' choice in the name of the der leader. It's saying "Let Mikey do it."
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Forbes says that both the House and the Senate must both vote to reject electors for the rejection to hold. Presumably each Representative and each Senator gets one vote, not like when the House votes in the case of no majority winner and each state delegation gets one vote, but I couldn't confirm that. Also, the "moderate" Senators (Murkowski, Collins, what's-his-face from Utah [I'm blanking]) would have to step in line for the Senate to vote to reject.

However, that letter is horrible and hopefully the representatives who signed it will pay for it.
Click to expand...
The headline says, "Probably Not" but in the paper they say:
but this last-ditch effort to keep Trump in office has virtually no chance of success.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Probably ninja'd in triplicate but no, the list was federal legislators.
Click to expand...

It was addressed to federal legislators, the state's U.S. House delegation. Those are the names typed at the beginning.

But the signatures below the text are all state officials. That's who wrote and signed the letter. From state officials to federal.
 
Paul2 said:
BTW, I wonder where this procedure of objecting to electors is laid out. I didn't see it in Article 2.
Click to expand...

It isn't in there. I don't know if it's a law, or part of the Senate rules. I'm guessing it's a law, but I really don't know.

The procedure is meant to handle cases where, as in 1876, there is some question of which group of electors was legitimate. There really is no such dispute this year. The legislators who have signed the letter are simply saying that the Congress should ignore the vote. There's a veneer of legality about it, but it's flim flam.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The headline says, Probably not but in the paper they say:
Click to expand...
Yes, there is virtually no chance of success because both Houses would need to approve. That could only happen if (at least) the House voted on a delegation basis, not on a Representative basis. Unfortunately, the article doesn't specify the basis of that vote.

I still wonder where this is all laid out officially and legally in black and white.

My paranoia here is not based solely on the odds of something like electors being challenged in the Congress, etc. The other number that has to be calculated in is the cost of a 2nd Trump term, which would be so astronomical that even if the risk of it is virtually nothing, it still pencils out to not going forward on the basis that it will all work out.
 
Meadmaker said:
It does. When the electoral votes are counted, there's an opportunity to object, and then they go off and resolve the objection. I think each house votes on whether to accept or reject the ballots. I don't know what happens in the event of a deadlock.

I don't know if it has ever happened. Something like it happened in 1876, although I don't know the exact steps taken at that time. I don't know if it even got to the counting stage before a committee was set up to resolve the dispute.

The Supreme Court wasn't as powerful in 1876, so I suspect that today it would end up in the Supreme Court, in the unlikely event that any objection isn't squashed right away. At least one congressman has already said he would object. Mo somebody, from Alabama.

The very fact that a group of state legislators would endorse refusing to acknowledge election results is very, very, bad, even if the attempt fails. I didn't take coup talk seriously. In terms of the prospect of success I still don't, but that letter should never have happened, and those people should be thrown out of office at the first legal opportunity to do so. The sad thing is, they won't be.
Click to expand...

If this went before the SCOTUS, all one need argue is if the 'originals' had wanted the Congress too have such power they would have explicitly given Congress the power to elect the POTUS.

And if that were true, the POTUS would never be a check on the legislative branch.
 
Paul2 said:
Yes, there is virtually no chance of success because both Houses would need to approve. That could only happen if (at least) the House voted on a delegation basis, not on a Representative basis. Unfortunately, the article doesn't specify the basis of that vote.

I still wonder where this is all laid out officially and legally in black and white.

My paranoia here is not based solely on the odds of something like electors being challenged in the Congress, etc. The other number that has to be calculated in is the cost of a 2nd Trump term, which would be so astronomical that even if the risk of it is virtually nothing, it still pencils out to not going forward on the basis that it will all work out.
Click to expand...

It's in 3. U.S.C. section 15, passed in 1887.

Here's an explanation with more than you want to know about the process:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
 
Paul2 said:
Forbes says that both the House and the Senate must both vote to reject electors for the rejection to hold. Presumably each Representative and each Senator gets one vote, not like when the House votes in the case of no majority winner and each state delegation gets one vote, but I couldn't confirm that. Also, the "moderate" Senators (Murkowski, Collins, what's-his-face from Utah [I'm blanking]) would have to step in line for the Senate to vote to reject.

However, that letter is horrible and hopefully the representatives who signed it will pay for it.
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney. Whom I saw on CNN this morning saying he looked forward to working with President Biden.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's in 3. U.S.C. section 15, passed in 1887.

Here's an explanation with more than you want to know about the process:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
Click to expand...

That's a great document, thanks. It did not specify how the vote to resolve objections to electors would be made (by delegation or by Representative). Presumably not specifying means it's by Representative, as that document did specify that it is by delegation that a vote is counted when no person has won a majority of electors.
 
Paul2 said:
My paranoia here is not based solely on the odds of something like electors being challenged in the Congress, etc. The other number that has to be calculated in is the cost of a 2nd Trump term, which would be so astronomical that even if the risk of it is virtually nothing, it still pencils out to not going forward on the basis that it will all work out.
Click to expand...

The major issue about Trump managing to win this is that if that happens, then Democracy is dead in the US because from that point on all a Republican that loses an election has to do is declare that they lost due to Election Fraud by the Democrats, and the other Republicans will overturn the result. This means that they will never be able to be removed from power because any election they lose will have to be because of Election Fraud and the results can be overturned, and the will of the people ignored. That's what the fight is about, and while it seems that there are still some in the Republican Party that believe in democracy in some form, that number seems to be shrinking and the number that believe in a fascist state under Republican control appears to be steadily growing.
 
Paul2 said:
That's a great document, thanks. It did not specify how the vote to resolve objections to electors would be made (by delegation or by Representative). Presumably not specifying means it's by Representative, as that document did specify that it is by delegation that a vote is counted when no person has won a majority of electors.
Click to expand...

Yes, by representatives, assuming there isn't some fine print somewhere.

The name of the Alabama Congressman who promises to challenge the votes is Mo Brooks. Given this letter, I'm betting at least one of the GOP Representatives from Pennsylvania will as well. This is really disgusting.


According to that document I sent, there have apparently been challenges in the past, but they were either objections to "faithless electors", or were just people grandstanding for an opportunity to make a speech. I suppose the same thing will be true this year, but I don't like the looks of it one bit.
 
Meadmaker said:
Yes, by representatives, assuming there isn't some fine print somewhere.

The name of the Alabama Congressman who promises to challenge the votes is Mo Brooks. Given this letter, I'm betting at least one of the GOP Representatives from Pennsylvania will as well. This is really disgusting.


According to that document I sent, there have apparently been challenges in the past, but they were either objections to "faithless electors", or were just people grandstanding for an opportunity to make a speech. I suppose the same thing will be true this year, but I don't like the looks of it one bit.
Click to expand...
This guy says it's by representative, not delegation. I think I'm going to choose to believe him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom