Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

RedDenver said:
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.
Click to expand...




I am saying they wouldn't get to 270 because the House and Senate don't agree on the count. The reason they wouldn't agree on the account is because the state(s) send 2 sets of electors.

An article I read today which I can't dig up right now showed that the governor decides the electors but the state legislature can step in and they could send 2 different sets.

Edit: Ok I found this one - the one I read earlier was from a bigger news source but it was saying the same thing. And then I promptly closed it before pasting it, but it's from rollcall.com.

 

Michigan’s Democratic secretary of state and governor would assign electors based on the popular vote that Biden won. But the Republican-led Legislature, if it grabs on to arguments that the popular vote was fraudulent or otherwise problematic, might claim it has the authority to assign its own slate of electors.
 


While no legislature has ever tried to seize that authority after an election takes place, Foley points out that the Florida Legislature tossed around the idea in the 2000 election aftermath.

In the Michigan example then, both sets of electors meet and send the results for Congress to tally. That’s when the muddled language of Section 15 might kick in.



The Senate and House would then have to split over which of the two counts to accept. This could happen, in theory, if Republicans retain control of the Senate in the election and Democrats do the same in the House.
Click to expand...



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I am saying they wouldn't get to 270 because the House and Senate don't agree on the count. The reason they wouldn't agree on the account is because the state(s) send 2 sets of electors.

An article I read today which I can't dig up right now showed that the governor and the state legislature decide the electors and they could send 2 different sets. Or a Republican governor and state legislature could pick the GOP electors even if a Democrat won.

Edit: Ok I found this one - the one I read earlier was from a bigger news source but it was saying the same thing.

 
Click to expand...
The bolded isn't a blanket thing that happens everywhere. Each state is different, so you'd have to show which states this is a possibility for based on the laws for selecting electors in that state.

You didn't link the article, but that text is a lot of "if" and "might". In particular the Michigan legislature according to that text would have to establish "that the popular vote was fraudulent or otherwise problematic", which in itself means Michigan courts would have to agree with them. And that's only if the text you've posted is correct in their interpretation of Michigan law.

I don't think it's going to happen.

 
RedDenver said:
The bolded isn't a blanket thing that happens everywhere. Each state is different, so you'd have to show which states this is a possibility for based on the laws for selecting electors in that state.

You didn't link the article, but that text is a lot of "if" and "might". In particular the Michigan legislature according to that text would have to establish "that the popular vote was fraudulent or otherwise problematic", which in itself means Michigan courts would have to agree with them. And that's only if the text you've posted is correct in their interpretation of Michigan law.

I don't think it's going to happen.
Click to expand...




I've already said I don't think it's going to happen. I have heard of this talked about in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, so I think there are a bunch of states that allow for it. I don't think establishing it's fraudulent would be a big hurdle. Michigan has a Republican majority in their Supreme Court. I think they would make it up then there would be lawsuits but they would be too late to make a difference.

 
I disagree with all 3 of the bolded statements.

I've already said I don't think it's going to happen. I have heard of this talked about in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, so I think there are a bunch of states that allow for it.
Click to expand...
It's wildly speculative to say "I've heard some stuff about state A and B; therefore, I concluded it's true for a bunch of states." That's just conspiracy rumors.

I don't think establishing it's fraudulent would be a big hurdle.
Click to expand...
This is again wild speculation. Establishing election fraud requires evidence. And we've seen the courts slap down Trumpkin lawsuits of election fraud as having no evidence, so even this election cycle there's evidence to the contrary.

Michigan has a Republican majority in their Supreme Court. I think they would make it up then there would be lawsuits but they would be too late to make a difference.
Click to expand...
Again as we've seen this election cycle already, the courts can take up these cases literally the next day after a filing because of their time-sensitivity and importance.

 
Another one bites the dust  - first of several who will be forced out of the admin by trump as he goes on his 'sour grapes' tour.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/trump-says-defense-secretary-mark-esper-has-been-fired.html

The moves come as Trump refuses to accept the results of the presidential election and on the heels of an NBC News report that Esper had prepped his resignation letter, bracing for an inevitable termination from the Trump administration.

Esper’s firing might not be all. A Trump administration official told CNBC’s Eamon Javers that “I assume FBI and CIA are next,” referring to FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel.

In an extraordinary break with Trump, Esper told reporters in June that he did not support the invoking the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law, to allow Trump to deploy active-duty U.S. troops to respond to civil unrest stemming from protests against police brutality across the country.

“I say this not only as secretary of Defense, but also as a former soldier and a former member of the National Guard, the option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire situations. We are not in one of those situations now,” Esper said.
Click to expand...

 


They keep changing the hotline number to stop the hecklers.

And then they announce the new number publicly. 

And the hecklers call the new number. 

:lol:

 
The cult keeps pushing forward    Their delusion will hurt the country. 


Moiraine said:
Sour grapes, or a desperate attempt to put in place men who will be willing to use the military to keep him in office.
Click to expand...
Yes men have their price and will pay a price.

 
knapplc said:
The party of "lock her up" and mocking a disabled reporter wants vindication for being called "deplorable" by a candidate four years ago. 

:Frosty:
Click to expand...
Yes, I know - just wants to make you cry alligator tears :cry      Maybe we need to play a few of these :violin :violin :violin :Frosty:

It is getting so pathetic and beyond childish and that comparison is an insult to a child. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
@MoiraineThis Twitter thread walks through different ways the EC gets selected and counted. Not sure if this addresses your concerns or not:
Click to expand...




Thanks. This is probably the most important part. I think it technically can get to this point where there are 2 sets of electors up before congress, but not only would it have to happen in multiple states:


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top