Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[QMany]

Trump and his legal team, headed by Kushner, are all too incompetent to pull off this Hail Mary.

 

It is over.

 

Anything going forward is just another scam for more money.

[Moiraine]

Not gonna put attempts at anything past these a$$h@!es.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/politics/ascertainment-trump-biden-transition/index.html

 

Quote

This week, all eyes are on the Trump-appointed General Services Administration administrator, Emily W. Murphy, to recognize Joe Biden as the winner of the election and president-elect. Murphy isn't a household name, but she's the person tasked with officially affirming Biden has won the election on behalf of the Trump administration.

 

She needs to sign a letter to release funds to the Biden transition team through a process called ascertainment. This would mark the first formal acknowledgment from the Trump administration that Biden has in fact won the election, but it would also unlock access to national security tools to streamline background checks and additional funds to pay for training and incoming staff.

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

Here's an article on the unlikely put possible hypothetical of a state sending GOP electors and DNC electors.

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dueling-electors-explain-idUSKBN2712M7

 

 

 

Then there is Arizona and Georgia which have GOP legislatures, not sure on AZ governor but Georgia's is GOP. There are some crazy a$$ state senators out there. If there are enough of them in a state they could say they think it's up for congress to decide.


It's stupid that things are still set up this way. There is no reason to have electors. The final official vote counts should determine if the president won the election.

 

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

 

 

The faithless electors part is moot; that isn’t what I’ve been talking about. But maybe you are just including that Tweet because it’s embedded with the other.

 

Like I said, I won’t put anything past crazy state senators. They could hypothetically start a legal case the morning of the decision just to give the excuse. We should stop assuming norms will be followed. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

The faithless electors part is moot; that isn’t what I’ve been talking about. But maybe you are just including that Tweet because it’s embedded with the other.

 

Like I said, I won’t put anything past crazy state senators. They could hypothetically start a legal case the morning of the decision just to give the excuse. We should stop assuming norms will be followed. 

 

[RedDenver]

 

[Moiraine]

Just now, RedDenver said:

 

 

 

Yep. And that isn’t good. If the House and Senate don’t agree then we could potentially not get to 270. 

[JJ Husker]

Sure it's concerning and ridiculous but at least there is some satisfaction seeing Trump flop and gasp like a carp on the riverbank.

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yep. And that isn’t good. If the House and Senate don’t agree then we could potentially not get to 270. 

That's not how it works. The Senate and House have to concurrently agree to reject or accept the EC votes. Note that if the two Houses do not agree, then the voters are still counted. So the Senate cannot prevent getting to 270 votes unless the House agrees.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Quote

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.

 

[commando]

might not matter.  trump fired the sec of defense and placed a new acting sec of defense.   i wonder why he would need to do that?

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, commando said:

might not matter.  trump fired the sec of defense and placed a new acting sec of defense.   i wonder why he would need to do that?

 

Esper very publicly stated that he'd drafted a letter of resignation a few days ago. I felt then that trump had asked him to use the military to enforce staying in power and he refused. 

 

One of the JCoS mentioned also that the military wouldn't be involved in the US Election. You just don't hear comments like that around election time. 

 

Again, though, I don't think trump has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Even with his boogaloo boys and proud boys all backing him with whatever of the military would turn traitor and try to enthrone trump, the entire rest of the country would resist, including most or all of the military.

 

[commando]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Esper very publicly stated that he'd drafted a letter of resignation a few days ago. I felt then that trump had asked him to use the military to enforce staying in power and he refused. 

and the new guy.....probably appointed because he agreed to use the military.  hope i am wrong....but with trump it would shock me if i am wrong.

[RedDenver]

Just now, knapplc said:

Esper very publicly stated that he'd drafted a letter of resignation a few days ago. I felt then that trump had asked him to use the military to enforce staying in power and he refused. 

I think a military coup is the only way Trump can stay in power now. The military isn't going to overthrow the Constitution they've swore to protect for some SecDef political appointee.

[Moiraine]

55 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's not how it works. The Senate and House have to concurrently agree to reject or accept the EC votes. Note that if the two Houses do not agree, then the voters are still counted. So the Senate cannot prevent getting to 270 votes unless the House agrees.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.

 

 

In the scenario we are talking about, there are 2 sets of electors, which is how we would get to the situation of the House and Senate disagreeing in the first place.

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

In the scenario we are talking about, there are 2 sets of electors, which is how we would get to the situation of the House and Senate disagreeing in the first place.

I was responding to your post about not getting to 270 electors, which would require the Senate and House concurrence to reject EC voters.

 

As for two sets of electors, that's a state issue as the states choose the electors. So you'd need to show me where the state law allows this to happen. I understand that it happened a really long time ago, but state laws have changed since then.