Trump's Coup d'état.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Putin would probably laugh at sanctions; paying them back in their own coin is the way to go.

Maybe. But the timing is still suspicious.

And if he didn't care about sanctions, why was it a reason to back Trump? I get it there were other reasons, but there was a request that sanctions be lifted and the two properties in the US be returned.

 

[Thermal]

The coup is over. Why? Not because of the EC, at least, not directly.

It's because Trump's Russian handlers, namely Vladimir Putin and Moscow Mitch have recognized Biden's election, as of this morning.

And so begins Trump's undignified descent to irrelevance. No more rabid fans or swooning archenemies or pretend coups.

Now back to the important stuff: those Legions of neo-fascists eager to get power who learned that the Bufoon-in-Chief thing worked once, but needs to be refined to work again.

 

[Hercules56]

Fake Electors, who have not been certified by the state's Secretary of State, have been sending in votes for Trump from MI, WI, GA and PA.

Can these people be charged with fraud?

 

[Thermal]

Fake Electors, who have not been certified by the state's Secretary of State, have been sending in votes for Trump from MI, WI, GA and PA.

Can these people be charged with fraud?

At least charge them with providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[Hercules56]

At least charge them with providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

No, a charge of treason would be laughed out of court.

Election fraud, would stick.

 

[Thermal]

No, a charge of treason would be laughed out of court.

Election fraud, would stick.

Littering has teeth.

 

[pgwenthold]

Fake Electors, who have not been certified by the state's Secretary of State, have been sending in votes for Trump from MI, WI, GA and PA.

Can these people be charged with fraud?

Not really. The problem with this is that it's not even wrong.

They are not electors, and so they are not doing anything meaningful.

Claiming to be electors has no meaning. I could claim to be President, but it doesn't matter. I can make an executive order, and it has no significance. "Sending in votes" means nothing, it's no different from any other random junk mail.

Votes by official electors are presented in a meeting of the electors with the Electoral College and by state officials.

These people random citizens sending in worthless sheets of paper. It's not illegal. It's just pointless.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was thinking the same thing when I read that Putin and McConnell congratulated Biden. A very conservative Congressman also quit the GOP yesterday

I was glad to read about the congressman, but the fact that the only one to stand up to Trump is a lame duck who didn't even run for reelection this time around takes a bit of the shine off of it.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I was glad to read about the congressman, but the fact that the only one to stand up to Trump is a lame duck who didn't even run for reelection this time around takes a bit of the shine off of it.

Testing

 

[pgwenthold]

This is inspired by a comment in the Trump presidency thread, but there is something that should be viewed as very scary here.

I've seen this pointed out by others, but the approach the Republicans are talking about in terms of challenging electoral votes is a problem. It will not succeed this year, because of the democratic majority in the house, so that means that all challenges will be rejected, but what if that wasn't the case? What if the House and Senate both had GOP majorities? Would that mean that the results of the election could be thrown out merely because the GOP doesn't like it? Or, of course, turn it around and switch the parties?

Challenging the votes only takes a conspiracy of 2 to initiate it. Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example, regardless of how badly the arguments have failed in court. Heck, why even bother with courts when you can just have Congress make the decision?

Our system relies on people who act honestly and in good faith. What happens if the elected officials decide they don't care about the will of the people? It's all a house of cards that falls.

Oh sure, you could say "Vote them out." In 2 years. And then the next corrupt group comes in to do it again. The precedent is set.

What's to stop it?

This is scary, people. All that has to happens is that one party decides that all that matters is power.

We have to implement rules to prevent this from happening.

 

[Paul2]

This is inspired by a comment in the Trump presidency thread, but there is something that should be viewed as very scary here.

I've seen this pointed out by others, but the approach the Republicans are talking about in terms of challenging electoral votes is a problem. It will not succeed this year, because of the democratic majority in the house, so that means that all challenges will be rejected, but what if that wasn't the case? What if the House and Senate both had GOP majorities? Would that mean that the results of the election could be thrown out merely because the GOP doesn't like it? Or, of course, turn it around and switch the parties?

Challenging the votes only takes a conspiracy of 2 to initiate it. Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example, regardless of how badly the arguments have failed in court. Heck, why even bother with courts when you can just have Congress make the decision?

Our system relies on people who act honestly and in good faith. What happens if the elected officials decide they don't care about the will of the people? It's all a house of cards that falls.

Oh sure, you could say "Vote them out." In 2 years. And then the next corrupt group comes in to do it again. The precedent is set.

What's to stop it?

This is scary, people. All that has to happens is that one party decides that all that matters is power.

We have to implement rules to prevent this from happening.

The big three agenda items for Biden, in my opinion, are Covid, climate change, and election reform.

 

[Thermal]

This is inspired by a comment in the Trump presidency thread, but there is something that should be viewed as very scary here.

I've seen this pointed out by others, but the approach the Republicans are talking about in terms of challenging electoral votes is a problem. It will not succeed this year, because of the democratic majority in the house, so that means that all challenges will be rejected, but what if that wasn't the case? What if the House and Senate both had GOP majorities? Would that mean that the results of the election could be thrown out merely because the GOP doesn't like it? Or, of course, turn it around and switch the parties?

Challenging the votes only takes a conspiracy of 2 to initiate it. Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example, regardless of how badly the arguments have failed in court. Heck, why even bother with courts when you can just have Congress make the decision?

Our system relies on people who act honestly and in good faith. What happens if the elected officials decide they don't care about the will of the people? It's all a house of cards that falls.

Oh sure, you could say "Vote them out." In 2 years. And then the next corrupt group comes in to do it again. The precedent is set.

What's to stop it?

This is scary, people. All that has to happens is that one party decides that all that matters is power.

We have to implement rules to prevent this from happening.

We have multiple safeguards in place. The Courts, for instance, who have been tossing the challenges out like yesterday's garbage. That's what made the whole coup thing a bad joke. The system worked fine.

 

[pgwenthold]

We have multiple safeguards in place. The Courts, for instance, who have been tossing the challenges out like yesterday's garbage. That's what made the whole coup thing a bad joke. The system worked fine.

You should actually read the post you are responding to.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is inspired by a comment in the Trump presidency thread, but there is something that should be viewed as very scary here.

I've seen this pointed out by others, but the approach the Republicans are talking about in terms of challenging electoral votes is a problem. It will not succeed this year, because of the democratic majority in the house, so that means that all challenges will be rejected, but what if that wasn't the case? What if the House and Senate both had GOP majorities? Would that mean that the results of the election could be thrown out merely because the GOP doesn't like it? Or, of course, turn it around and switch the parties?

Challenging the votes only takes a conspiracy of 2 to initiate it. Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example, regardless of how badly the arguments have failed in court. Heck, why even bother with courts when you can just have Congress make the decision?

Our system relies on people who act honestly and in good faith. What happens if the elected officials decide they don't care about the will of the people? It's all a house of cards that falls.

Oh sure, you could say "Vote them out." In 2 years. And then the next corrupt group comes in to do it again. The precedent is set.

What's to stop it?

This is scary, people. All that has to happens is that one party decides that all that matters is power.

We have to implement rules to prevent this from happening.

I share your concerns.

However, there is at least one more hurdle. This has been covered elsewhere, by me, Devil's Advocate, and perhaps others. The law that allows Congress to challenge electoral votes has some strings attached. You said

" Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example,"

By law, it does matter on what basis they challenge. "I believe there was election fraud", isn't good enough to meet the demands of the law under which they are pretending to operate, so the Supreme Court would strike down the challenge.

The reason I share you concerns, though, is that anyone who was willing to ignore the law, the votes, and the basic tenets of our Constitutioal Republic, probably wouldn't let a little thing like a Supreme Court ruling stand in their way. Through their actions this year, they have already shown that they are willing to stand aside and do nothing while someone attempts to subvert democracy and the rule of law. If they are willing to do that, I don't have confidence that in the future their successors won't go farther. Even though this attempt is fizzling out into nothingness, it still went a lot farther than it ever ought to have gone, and with a lot less protest than their ought to have been.

 

[Firestone]

I've seen this pointed out by others, but the approach the Republicans are talking about in terms of challenging electoral votes is a problem. It will not succeed this year, because of the democratic majority in the house, so that means that all challenges will be rejected, but what if that wasn't the case? What if the House and Senate both had GOP majorities? Would that mean that the results of the election could be thrown out merely because the GOP doesn't like it? Or, of course, turn it around and switch the parties?

Amazing that Gingrich didn't try this in 1996.

 

[pgwenthold]

The reason I share you concerns, though, is that anyone who was willing to ignore the law, the votes, and the basic tenets of our Constitutioal Republic, probably wouldn't let a little thing like a Supreme Court ruling stand in their way. Through their actions this year, they have already shown that they are willing to stand aside and do nothing while someone attempts to subvert democracy and the rule of law. If they are willing to do that, I don't have confidence that in the future their successors won't go farther. Even though this attempt is fizzling out into nothingness, it still went a lot farther than it ever ought to have gone, and with a lot less protest than their ought to have been.

OK, then choose whatever "valid" reason for challenging the vote you want. The problem is that it doesn't have to be honest. They don't have to believe that there was election fraud, they can just say that there was. Once challenged, the case goes to congress, and the house and senate vote, and they both vote to reject the vote (uphold the challenge).

As you say, it can go to the SC, but if the original challenge was based on something that was valid (ok, don't use election fraud), then is this SC going to get involved? They will say, the law says it's up to the legislature.

There is no guarantee that the challenge has to be made in good faith, only that it is in writing. "I believe that this vote should be rejected because elector X is ineligible because of Y." You have someone from the house and from the senate sign on and it has to go to full vote.

There is nothing in that process that says that it has to be true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is no law or Constitutional Framework that can protect us from a lazy and stupid population driven entirely by spite.

 

[Paul2]

I share your concerns.

However, there is at least one more hurdle. This has been covered elsewhere, by me, Devil's Advocate, and perhaps others. The law that allows Congress to challenge electoral votes has some strings attached. You said

" Does it matter on what basis they challenge? Not at all, they don't have be honest. They can just claim "I believe there was election fraud" for example,"

By law, it does matter on what basis they challenge. "I believe there was election fraud", isn't good enough to meet the demands of the law under which they are pretending to operate, so the Supreme Court would strike down the challenge.

The reason I share you concerns, though, is that anyone who was willing to ignore the law, the votes, and the basic tenets of our Constitutioal Republic, probably wouldn't let a little thing like a Supreme Court ruling stand in their way. Through their actions this year, they have already shown that they are willing to stand aside and do nothing while someone attempts to subvert democracy and the rule of law. If they are willing to do that, I don't have confidence that in the future their successors won't go farther. Even though this attempt is fizzling out into nothingness, it still went a lot farther than it ever ought to have gone, and with a lot less protest than their ought to have been.

Maker of the Mead, here's the problem. The relevant section of the code that says this:

and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified

is inconsistent. It gives criteria for not rejecting electors, but it doesn't outline a process, operationally, by which that criteria must be respected. Operationally, what meets the criteria is what a majority of the House and Senate say, regardless of the criteria that the code states.

I suppose because the criteria is in the law, one could bring a legal challenge if the criteria were not respected, and then we have to trust the SCOTUS to do the right thing. What happens if they are not so inclined? Or is there no way around this, and we have to trust someone eventually?

ETA: ninja'ed

 

[Meadmaker]

OK, then choose whatever "valid" reason for challenging the vote you want. The problem is that it doesn't have to be honest. They don't have to believe that there was election fraud, they can just say that there was. Once challenged, the case goes to congress, and the house and senate vote, and they both vote to reject the vote (uphold the challenge).

As you say, it can go to the SC, but if the original challenge was based on something that was valid (ok, don't use election fraud), then is this SC going to get involved? They will say, the law says it's up to the legislature.

There is no guarantee that the challenge has to be made in good faith, only that it is in writing. "I believe that this vote should be rejected because elector X is ineligible because of Y." You have someone from the house and from the senate sign on and it has to go to full vote.

There is nothing in that process that says that it has to be true.

DevilsAdvocate's most recent post on the subject goes into why it isn't quite that easy, but the point of your post remains entirely valid. The whole process depends on people behaving decently, and following the rule of law and the principles that underlie our system of government.

Sadly, a few people, including the President of the United States and a few Congressmen, have proved they are willing to throw all of that under the bus. An awful lot of people have proved that they are willing to stand by and not object, at least as far as it went. A huge fraction of the country, though nowhere near a majority, seemed to support this fiasco.

And this was all in a situation where there was no way these objections were every going to go anywhere. With a Democratic House and a bare majority in the Senate that could tolerate no defectors, the Republican Party was willing to entertain the idea of overturning an election, and stand by while people tried. I shudder to think what might happen if the situation were different, with solid majorities in both houses of Congress. I feel like this year's Republicans have let the genie out of the bottle, and it's going to be hard to stuff back in.


(Note: In case anyone tries to search for the post I mentioned, note that the user involved is DevilsAdvocate, not Devil's Advocate. Two different users.)

 

[Thermal]

You should actually read the post you are responding to.

I did. You essentially pose that the majority of Congress would be criminally corrupt and complicit in blatant fraud. That's pretty CT, considering how the majority conservative SCOTUS wouldn't budge over the ethical line. A vote would never make it to the floor without substance fueling it.

How would you propose it could make it to vote, even assuming you had the corrupt representatives? A couple guys saying 'fraud' wouldn't do it.