9mo ago

That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.

www.thenation.com

That “Little Secret” Between Trump and Johnson? Here’s What It Could Mean.

A potential plan by Republican leaders to steal the 2024 presidential election. The plan involves delaying the certification of election results in key battleground states, potentially decreasing the overall number of electors appointed and allowing Donald Trump to win the presidency through a contingent election, whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president.

News @lemmy.world

CurlyWurlies4All @slrpnk.net

8mo ago

That “Little Secret” Between Trump and Johnson? Here’s What It Could Mean.

www.thenation.com /article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/

Politics @beehaw.org

floofloof @lemmy.ca

9mo ago

That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.

www.thenation.com /article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/

United States | News & Politics @lemmy.ml

floofloof @lemmy.ca

9mo ago

That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.

www.thenation.com /article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/

76 comments

They’ve said it out loud. Heritage foundation guy has been saying we’re in the middle of a bloodless coup, bloodless if the left allows it.
The historian, Heather Cox Richardson, can walk you though the legal channels for an election steal, provided the Speaker of the House is on board. I’m not going to dig to find it again. She’s on YouTube.
This is going to be like Roe, isn’t it? Where people know exactly what’s about to happen then act surprised when it does.
- bloodless if the left allows it.
  The left should not allow a coup.
  
  I don't think that the military would fall in line with it. There would be grave concerns
  
  Please. We will sit at home and cry. Or go wave signs in a street somewhere. And neither of those things will change anything.
  
  Good luck rounding up the anti-fascist revolution in the nation neoliberalism built 👍
- They didnt say it was a bloodless coup. They said if they get a Republican elected there will be sweeping changes, akin to another revolution. The statement about the left was a warning that the left might become violent if they try it.
  And you're proving their point pushing for violence.
  When one lies about what another has said in an attempt to basically call for violence, it's incredibly sus.
  
  You're right, he didn't outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.
  Everything you said after that is complete bullshit though
  
  This dum
  
  And this will be the twist around, the sophistry applied to objections going forward. An accusation of violence where there is none. Granted, that’s the cluster B personality playbook: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. (See: DSM-V). And since MAGA republicans are embracing the cluster B playbook, the above is not surprising, but expected.
  Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube. The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025. Context: discussing Supreme Court decision re presidential immunity paving the way to what is needed for the bloodless coup.
  https://imgur.com/gallery/S8zn4oo
I think the Republicans screwed themselves bit here. With the Supreme Court decision giving the president immunity for official Acts, Biden could just throw all those fuckers in jail as an official act for trying to stage a coup and that would give the presidency to Harris.
- He won't, though.
  
  Yes, Biden's mindset still hasn't caught up with the present circumstances, and probably won't.
- Throw the bent supremes in with them
  
  Actually, they should start with removing the illegitimately installed SCROTUS.
- He never would though. Name the last time when Democrats even got close to the line in using all of their power.
- You could literally have them killed by our military. If only
The reason it didn't happen line this last time is that the legislators and Governors whose job it is to certify the EC electors also get their job through elections. Some of them may have been re-elected on the very same ballot. If they start playing games and saying that now, despite a clear victory by one side, they can't affirm that victory, it will call into question their own electoral legitimacy.
One yo-yo suggested this in NC a few weeks ago - that after the hurricane, voting would be such a difficult chore that they should just skip the Presidential election and give Trump all their EC votes, and that idea was quickly given the mocking it deserved.
State and local election officials, of every party, take pride in conducting their elections in a fair manner, and reporting results on time. The distributed nature of our elections is actually an asset here, because each state governs their own elections locally, necessitating schemes like this to be duplicated in each state theyare intended for. And the "safe harbor" provisions function to make sure that as long as certification is done on time, there is very little that Congress can do other than count them . At least, I hope....
- I remember when I had first beer.
  
  Fr
"Preventing this scenario requires Republicans to act in good faith and certify the results of elections that go against their guy."
And this is where Speaker Johnson becomes critical to the whole “secret” plan. In 2020, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. If states had tried to get cute and not submit their electors by the December 11 deadline, Pelosi would just have extended the deadline. But Speaker Johnson surely won’t. If electors are not submitted by December 11, he’ll likely declare the process “over” and say that the electors appointed by that date are the only ones allowed to vote for president.
Isn't Speaker Johnson subject to recall? Maybe it's time that happened.
- Wasn't this also settled in Bush v Gore?
  The states must submit electors by the certification date. That's why the 2000 recount had to be stopped.
  
  I doubt the current supreme court will do anything even though in 2000 that decision helped the republican. They'll find a reason to flip.
  
  That was an unsigned non-binding opinion. And the current court will jump on it in a heartbeat.
It would be worth looking into which states have wording in their Constitutions that include "shall certify" which would make the stalling tactic a crime.
Also, anyone who voted in a state whose electors were not sent on time would have a valid civil rights case against that state's officials and they would all have standing because they were personally harmed. The number of potential lawsuits would be overwhelming and perhaps ruinous to anyone found guilty. Not sure that fear of that would be enough to stop them, but also they have to worry about losing their next election (though if it worked they might hope to be rewarded by the winning administration).
- Realistically, even without "shall," most states carry the legal obligation in state statutes not the state constitution. The problem is that the crime is minor or will almost certainly be pardoned immediately by Trump. So even if it's "illegal," oh well. The governor refuses to certify, thereby breaking the law, Johnson still holds the deadline, the number of EC votes is lowered, Trump is declared the winner, and then the governors are pardoned and are in the good graces of the incoming POTUS.
  Just to be clear, that makes everything valid and constitutional at the federal level for this plan. I don't think you're grasping how fully fucked we might be.
  
  I found this document which lists all of the timeline for Michigan certification: https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Michigan%20Guide%20-%20Final.pdf (apparently this has been on a lot of folks' radar for awhile :)
  that document makes it clear that in Michigan at least certification is a mandatory duty in both the constitution and by state law.
  
  The Constitution only grants the President the power to pardon federal crimes. I found a nice article with the history and status of the cases against the bad actors in the last attempt here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/where-the-fake-electors-cases-stand-in-state-court
I was worried when there was one possibility, but now that there are two?
- There's also just full-blown civil war where states completely revolt against the US government. Nothing is off the table with these psychopaths in charge
  
  We can short-circuit all that by saying "Hey, you jokers want to leave? Then go already, and please leave your US passports in that basket by the door on your way out. By the way, here is a bill for your share of the Federal Debt, apportioned by population like the Constitution you say you revere says it should be. We also added the cost of all the military bases you are buying from us."
  Seriously, let the fuckers go. I'd be sad to see Austin go. But, really, that's about it.
- This is getting out of hand!
  
  Media companies: but think how many clicks we will get!
There Will Be Blood. Let's drink the fascists' milkshake.
Scary shit
Quick! Vote!
- Done! Now what?
  
  In all seriousness, you can phone bank.
  https://go.kamalaharris.com/
  
  Ships and guns!
I don't understand. Isn't it the VP who certifies the results, anyway? Or does it pass down to Speaker, since she's running?
- The VP certifies the results received by the deadline. That wouldn't change anything here, and she would be obligated to declare Trump the winner. Like Pence, the VP can't decide not to certify legitimate results submitted to congress by the deadline. The point here is that select blue states won't make the deadline through republican stalling, SCOTUS won't "interfere" in the election by adjudication, so the VP is required to only consider the full electors submitted by the deadline. And it would be perfectly valid at the federal level. The state actors might be committing a crime by stalling, but Trump will pardon them, so they really have little risk.
Why don't we just force runoff elections when things are off. It costs a few million, yes. But isn't it better for people to decide instead of one judge?
- Because that would change the results. People would be able to change their votes. It could result in yet another things are off. It doesn't resolve. It complicates.
  
  I don't see a problem with that.
.
If it isn't what the "little secret" meant, it damn sure is now. This is a brilliant plan.
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

76 comments