January 6 Hearings Live

[Politesse]

This article helped ease some of my fear: http://https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-hard-it-overturn-american-election.

In other words, to appoint a pro-Trump slate of electors, a state legislature would have to proceed in the face of (1) a known popular vote that went for Biden by some thousands of votes, (2) official certification of that result by the elected officials of the state, (3) public statements by responsible state officials conceding that the election had not seen substantial irregularities, let alone fraud, (4) court actions rejecting challenges to any claims of fraud, (5) in some states, state law obstacles to such a course, (6) possible federal constitutional law obstacles to such a course, and (7) the clear preference in federal statute for electoral votes certified under rules established in advance of the election.

Ignoring all that, we're talking sedition. Is Mitch going to take Donald's hand and walk down that path?

They have before. Remember, a lot of Republicans were quite eager to support the president during the impeachment process despite admitting in many cases, that he had knowingly committed or attempted to commit crimes in pursuit of political office. This is different, but is it so different? We're already seeing a similar pattern of "privately admit, publically deny wrongdoing" among the sitting Republican politicians.

 

[Elixir]

This is not a coup, it's just koo koo.

..

It's the Keystone Kleptokratz Koo

 

[ZiprHead]

Former top Postal Service official testifies Mnuchin and White House were involved in slowing mail

The former Vice Chairman of the Postal Board of Governors testified Thursday that the Trump administration has been "politicizing" the Postal Service and using Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to inappropriately influence the organization for political ends that will eventually harm the customers and businesses the Postal Service is supposed to serve.

David Williams, former USPS Inspector General and former Vice Chair of the USPS Board of Governors, testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday that he resigned "when it became clear to me that the administration was politicizing the Postal Service with the treasury secretary as the lead figure for the White House in that effort."

By statute, Mnuchin as treasury secretary is responsible for providing the Postal Service with a line of credit, Williams testified. But Mnuchin "was using that responsibility to make demands that I believed would turn the Postal Service into a political tool, ending its long history as an apolitical public infrastructure."

 

[lpetrich]

This reminds me of the Papyrus of Ani (Egypt, ~1200 BCE), where one is supposed to say at one point "I have not stopped water". That seems mysterious until one recognizes that Egyptian agriculture has been a heavy user of irrigation for all of that territory's 5 thousand years of recorded history. So keeping water flowing in irrigation canals is a necessity.

With his postal-system sabotage, Trump has committed a similar misdeed.

 

[Artemus]

Integrity has apparently stymied Trump again.

Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf is defying President Trump’s order to terminate election cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs, multiple sources tell The Post.

 

[SLD]

So an interesting development in one of Trump's lawsuit. Trump's attorney admits that they have no evidence of voter fraud. All they got was obvious lies and spam.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...ence-of-fraud-produced-obvious-lies-and-spam/

Witnesses admitted under oath that they didn't even check if their vote was not counted and then admitted they didn't know and had no evidence that their vote wasn't counted. Directly contradicting their affidavits. Someone should go to jail over this.

But the bigger question is why then aren't they conceding these cases? Why haven't they dropped them as any semi-ethical lawyer would do? Why are they continuing to stir the pot. Simple: they want the legislature in these states to step in and declare the results invalid and that their electors are going to the electoral college. They'll argue that is what is required under Article II of the Constitution. They'll further argue that the legislatures in these states have the absolute authority to overrule the will of the voters. That the votes are irrelevant.

According to Article II of the Constitution - that is what is supposed to happen:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Thus a state legislature can overrule the votes of the people even though they have previously directed that the people may vote for the presidency and that will be the choice of the electors.

This is really coming down the pike folks. The Supreme Court will take this up and they will decide if the will of the voters can be effectively denied per the Constitution and the electors will not be chosen by the State legislators instead of the people. This is a coup.

SLD

 

[crazyfingers]

So an interesting development in one of Trump's lawsuit. Trump's attorney admits that they have no evidence of voter fraud. All they got was obvious lies and spam.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...ence-of-fraud-produced-obvious-lies-and-spam/

Witnesses admitted under oath that they didn't even check if their vote was not counted and then admitted they didn't know and had no evidence that their vote wasn't counted. Directly contradicting their affidavits. Someone should go to jail over this.

But the bigger question is why then aren't they conceding these cases? Why haven't they dropped them as any semi-ethical lawyer would do? Why are they continuing to stir the pot. Simple: they want the legislature in these states to step in and declare the results invalid and that their electors are going to the electoral college. They'll argue that is what is required under Article II of the Constitution. They'll further argue that the legislatures in these states have the absolute authority to overrule the will of the voters. That the votes are irrelevant.

According to Article II of the Constitution - that is what is supposed to happen:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Thus a state legislature can overrule the votes of the people even though they have previously directed that the people may vote for the presidency and that will be the choice of the electors.

This is really coming down the pike folks. The Supreme Court will take this up and they will decide if the will of the voters can be effectively denied per the Constitution and the electors will not be chosen by the State legislators instead of the people. This is a coup.

SLD

Yes the states decide how to choose electors but I had read in a different story that they can't change the law once voting has started. I hope that's correct.

 

[SLD]

So an interesting development in one of Trump's lawsuit. Trump's attorney admits that they have no evidence of voter fraud. All they got was obvious lies and spam.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...ence-of-fraud-produced-obvious-lies-and-spam/

Witnesses admitted under oath that they didn't even check if their vote was not counted and then admitted they didn't know and had no evidence that their vote wasn't counted. Directly contradicting their affidavits. Someone should go to jail over this.

But the bigger question is why then aren't they conceding these cases? Why haven't they dropped them as any semi-ethical lawyer would do? Why are they continuing to stir the pot. Simple: they want the legislature in these states to step in and declare the results invalid and that their electors are going to the electoral college. They'll argue that is what is required under Article II of the Constitution. They'll further argue that the legislatures in these states have the absolute authority to overrule the will of the voters. That the votes are irrelevant.

According to Article II of the Constitution - that is what is supposed to happen:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Thus a state legislature can overrule the votes of the people even though they have previously directed that the people may vote for the presidency and that will be the choice of the electors.

This is really coming down the pike folks. The Supreme Court will take this up and they will decide if the will of the voters can be effectively denied per the Constitution and the electors will not be chosen by the State legislators instead of the people. This is a coup.

SLD

Yes the states decide how to choose electors but I had read in a different story that they can't change the law once voting has started. I hope that's correct.

I hope so too. But remember SCOTUS has been stacked by Trump selectees. And they call themselves "Originalists." It's insane. I really fear for what will happen if they go down this path. Can you imagine the uproar throughout the country that this would cause? We no longer get to vote for president. The end of democratic rule and welcome to a one party Republican state. Exactly the way they want it. Fuck Republicans.

 

[Rhea]

I've been reading explanations at www.electoral-vote.com (main page link) and I find them reassuringly solid.




Stealing the Election Is Not Plausible (direct link to article)

Stealing the Election Is Not Plausible
We've done this once before, but it looks like it's time to take another careful look at the alleged chink in the United States' electoral armor, namely that state legislatures have the power to decide how electors are awarded. Once the vote counting and lawsuits have stopped—and especially if Joe Biden clearly wins Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and the three "Midwest" states—Donald Trump's only remaining move would be to get a court to order the secretaries of state in those states to refrain from certifying the votes and the governors to refrain from issuing certificates of ascertainment. Then, the idea would be to get the state legislatures to directly appoint slates of Trump electors. According to Axios, this route is apparently under consideration by the Trump campaign. As one lawyer who spoke to Axios observed, "It's basically hijacking the democracy."

And now, let us talk about eight sizable problems this scheme would run into:

• Timing, Part I:
• Timing, Part II:
• The Courts:
• The Legislators:
• The Governors:
• The Archivist:
• The Counting of Electoral Votes, Part I:
• The Counting of Electoral Votes, Part II:

So, there's not going to be a soft coup; there are just too many obstacles to overcome. Indeed, although McConnell has yet to crack, five members of his caucus (Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and James Lankford) have now publicly referred to Biden as the president-elect, and Lankford has decreed that Biden should be given access to intelligence briefings, and that if the Trump administration doesn't take care of that by today, then he will step in. In other words, the President's support in the all-important U.S. Senate is weakening badly, and we're not even at mid-November yet (much less Jan. 6). (Z & V)

Each of the bullet points is fleshed out in the article

 

[Shadowy Man]

Has Lankford stepped in yet?

 

[Treedbear]

...

... and Lankford has decreed that Biden should be given access to intelligence briefings, and that if the Trump administration doesn't take care of that by today, then he will step in. ...

...

It might get sticky if the DNI thought it wise to provide Biden with a more thorough and complete version of the PDB than they're accustomed to providing to President Trump.

The director of national intelligence (DNI) is the United States Government Cabinet-level official required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to:

• serve as head of the seventeen-member United States Intelligence Community
• direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program (NIP)
• serve as an advisor, upon invitation, to the President of the United States and his executive offices of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council about intelligence matters related to national security

The officeholder produces the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a top-secret document including intelligence from all the various agencies, given each morning to the president of the United States. The PDB is seen by the president and other authorized individuals.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"'Time will tell': Trump sounds less certain of overturning election in first public remarks in days"

Is it finally dawning on Trump that his term is going to end? Why would he say this?

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...rump-says-time-will-tell-if-he-stays-in-power

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is it finally dawning on Trump that his term is going to end? Why would he say this?

Maybe someone's finally convinced him that he doesn't have the clout to dictate how history will recall his presidency.
"Sir, you have two months left to have any impact on your legacy. I'd dial back on the flip-the-Monopoly-board tantrum, at the very least."

 

[marc]

WOPR: "Do you want to play a game?"

Sure...

Tic Tac Toe, Players: 0

 

[Swammerdami]

WOPR: "Do you want to play a game?"

Sure...

Tic Tac Toe, Players: 0

For any young'uns who miss the context, Here is the relevant clip from a 37 year-old movie.

 

[SLD]

So on a Facebook group I monitor, they are talking about doing exactly this. Have the PA, GA, and AZ legislatures override the election results and appoint the electors regardless of the voters’ will. They are reading Article II to allow this without question.

This is a great idea and shouldn’t result in violence. You should just accept it.

Ain’t freedom grand?

 

[Artemus]

So on a Facebook group I monitor, they are talking about doing exactly this. Have the PA, GA, and AZ legislatures override the election results and appoint the electors regardless of the voters’ will. They are reading Article II to allow this without question.

This is a great idea and shouldn’t result in violence. You should just accept it.

Ain’t freedom grand?

No court is going to allow a state legislature to ignore the laws that were in place during the election after the fact. If they want to change the law for the next election under Article II, fine. They can deal with the outraged public themselves. But the suggestion that the 2020 election could be overturned because a different law would also have been constitutional if it had been in place is ludicrous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WOPR: "Do you want to play a game?"

Sure...

Tic Tac Toe, Players: 0

For any young'uns who miss the context, Here is the relevant clip from a 37 year-old movie.

The WOPR was simply ignorant, not thick-skulled like the Republicans. It could learn.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Any word from Sen Lankford?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Any word from Sen Lankford?

On Monday he took the bold step of asking GSA about their “process”. Said he was satisfied and walked away. This by some degree is tethered to Biden getting intel briefings. Or could be if you need it to be.
I think after his initial comment last week, someone rapped him one and he has been mealy-mouthing his way back in line since.