Posted on 03/12/2024 12:18:41 PM PDT by Signalman
If you don't care to watch the video, here is the plan.
1. Convict Trump of election interference in October or November, or just before the election.
2. Based on the conviction, members of Congress will refuse to certify the election results if Trump wins.
It would Go to state house delegation vote...a vote of the 50 states. The dems might end up having a few more numbers in the congress but Republicans will probably still control more state houses so The republicans will control who gets to be president.
For that to happen, Congress would also have to refuse to certify the Electoral Votes cast separately for Trump's running mate. Otherwise, per Amendment XX of the Constitution, Trump's running mate would become the acting President.
I think the individual States will certify their own results. Some few might refuse to act, so they can be ignored.
The Electoral votes from however many States remain will make the decision. I think.
The problem with this is that there is no vote to "certify the election results" in Congress.
There is only a vote to object to the votes of Electors on a state-by-state basis. Congress can only object to Electors for two reasons:
I don't see how the Democrats in Congress can possibly do this if the states certify their own elections.
-PJ
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. sec. 21, "election day" -- i.e., the date by which presidential Electors are chosen -- is defined to mean "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President held in each State, except, in the case of a State that appoints electors by popular vote, if the State modifies the period of voting, as necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic, as provided under laws of the State enacted prior to such day, 'election day' shall include the modified period of voting."
Accordingly, "the Dems" -- whomever you mean by that, although presumably you mean the Dems in Congress -- cannot, as a matter of federal law, "postpone the election." Individual state are afforded some discretion in modifying the date of "election day" in their own state (in extraordinary circumstances), but Congress itself cannot unilaterally act in the manner you are presumably postulating.
In truth, there is no single "Presidential election," in terms of the choosing of Electors. Rather, there are 51 separate such Presidential elections held every four years.
The Supreme Court already said they can’t do this without legislation.
“Trump should choose a VP just as onerous to the Demonrats!”
Is there such a person? I don’t think there is.
But this refusal-to-certify has nothing to do with those qualifications. It’s a totally different thing.
Stay tuned.
Raheem Kassam said if this happens there will be massive “carnage” in the U.S.
Certainly not Tim Scott!
How? The Democrats shot themselves in the foot with the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022.
They raised the Objection rules from one House + one Senate member to any Objection must be signed by 1/5 of all House members + 1/5 of all Senate members. 20 Senators to every Objection. You can't get 20 Senators to agree on the proper temperature of the Senate Bean Soup served in their commissary.
And all of that is required simply to get an Objection to the next step.
Meanwhile they restricted the basis of any Objection, and if that wasn't enough, pre-empted the nebulous language surrounding certification of electors at the state level.
Congressional proceedingsThe bill clarifies that the Vice President's role in the counting of the electoral votes is "solely ministerial," with no power to "determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors." Any objection made by senators or representatives during the counting of the electoral votes must be made in writing and signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives. Previously, an objection required the signatures of only one member of each chamber. The bill also limits the grounds for an objection to one of the following:
- The electors of a state were not lawfully certified
- An elector's vote was not "regularly given"
I hope he has a great MAGA backup.
I strongly suspect he doesn’t make it to the 20th of January from the alphabet crowd and then CW II breaks out.
“I hope Turley isn’t fear mongering with this, but it looks plausible.”
It isn’t Turley’s idea. I think it was Raheem Kassam or Kash Patel who uncovered this plan being considered by the RATs as an actual option.
bookmark
Definitely not Tim Scott. He’s one of “them” — a squish who has done his share to disparage MAGA. Isn’t he the one who supported Murkowski?
LOL.
What, again!!??
And, the Republicans will do nothing about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.