- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
There Will Be Blood. Let’s drink the fascists’ milkshake.
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.
Removed by mod
Please. We will sit at home and cry. Or go wave signs in a street somewhere. And neither of those things will change anything.
Idk I seem to remember a lot of “cities burning” or something during some nationwide protests a few years ago after cops killed another person, I don’t think those people have gone anywhere.
Yeah that was really amazing when they stopped police violence.
Rome wasn’t built in a day as the saying goes. Because we make incremental progress shouldn’t mean we stop fighting. Defeatism and apathy has never won anyone anything.
I’m just pointing out that police violence increased, not decreased, after #BLM.
Police violence has been an epidemic for decades, ask the nearest brown guy. What we’re seeing now isn’t necessarily the increase in violence itself, but a rise in reporting and accountability, people are becoming aware of it and how often it actually happens.
An increase in awareness doesn’t mean you lost or that it’s over.
I don’t think that the military would fall in line with it. There would be grave concerns
The military will do nothing.
You greatly underestimate our men and women in the service…it’s alright you probably haven’t served or been exposed to many service members, but if you can trust an internet stranger slightly I hope I can put your mind at ease by saying I have 100% faith from the top down in our military up holding the oath we all took.
They don’t need the military. The police have already been militarized and have zero issue using violence against the populace as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Also respectfully, as a vet, the military is not homogenous and Trump will absolutely find the people in the military that will listen to him and put them in charge
Overall I think you’re right. But there is a significant problem on the Marines.
Ok, but this “bloodless coup” will theoretically be following the letter of the law.
You have read meanings into my comment that aren’t intended and have presumed I lack a career in military service. The U.S. military is forbidden from enforcing policy on U.S. soil by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The military is not going to do anything about election issues or any other issues unless leadership has been compromised at large. I doubt they will be compromised.
I did assume as I do a lot, but I see what you are saying now.
The marines won’t, but pentagon leadership and the army, along with the NY and CA National guards may be enough.
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
You’re right, he didn’t outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.
In refence to how they were going to reshape the executive after they win the election. Calling it a coup is just outright lying about what was said, as what they claim they are going to do will be perfectly legal. It’s scary enough on it’s own. Trying to paint it as if they are openly claiming they are going to steal the government is just dishonest. Why defend this, I have no idea.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
to steal the executive branch of the government by illegally (at the state level, in defiance of state constitutions and statutes) disenfranchising entire states that vote the way Republicans don’t want
I hate defending the heritage foundation, but my love for reality exceeds that hate.
And they have openly claimed on numerous occasions that they intend to take the executive regardless of what the vote reflects
Of course you don’t link to any of that. But, either way, I’m responding to the blatant lying about what they said right here.
I have no idea what you’re on about, but I’ve got you tagged at some prior point as “blathering idiot,” so I assume you’re just doing what you usually do. Blather on.
If this is any indication of the way you “debate,” I wear that tag as a badge of honor. Thank you.
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.
And this will be the twist around
It’s funny being accused of twisting something around when I’m pointing out that the poster is lying about what was said, and implicitly making calls to violence over that lie.
Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube.
Except the poster didn’t say “I heard this on some far right youtube thing” but made a claim about what the head of the heritage foundation said.
The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025.
And how does that make the lie the top level poster made about what he said any more true? I don’t follow your logic here.
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.
It’s all Democrats in office. They’re a bunch of high road cowards that will ride the high road right off a cliff just so they can smell their own farts and exclaim how virtuous they are for not having taken extreme measures to protect us.
Not just cowards, paid off cowards. Their donors don’t want progressive policies.
Almost makes you wish Dark Brandon wasn’t a total meme.
But it is.
He never would though. Name the last time when Democrats even got close to the line in using all of their power.
Throw the bent supremes in with them
Actually, they should start with removing the illegitimately installed SCROTUS.
You could literally have them killed by our military. If only
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.
That was an unsigned non-binding opinion. And the current court will jump on it in a heartbeat.
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.
“Preventing this scenario requires Republicans to act in good faith and certify the results of elections that go against their guy.”
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
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 Guide - Final.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.
I appreciate you providing these links. And to be clear, I’ve read them each time you post them. They’re edifying.
What I think you might be overlooking is this: what if I don’t do that mandatory duty in the timeframe stipulated? OK, so I broke the statute and related state constitution mandate. I may receive a mild punishment. Plus, now the board can demand the information. What if I don’t heed the demand? Well then you might bring a lawsuit. What if I hire an attorney with the express intention of stalling, and part of what the lawyer does is moves the case before a sympathetic judge?
Even without a sympathetic judge, the lawsuit may take months. Remember, a fair legal hearing is part of “your” rules that you need to play by. Whoops. We missed the deadline, but we will see how the court case plays out sometime in 2025. What if the judge fast tracks it, I’m held to account, and I simply refuse to produce the results and choose to serve time? National scandal. Armed militias in Michigan activate. Still doesn’t matter, because we miss the deadline. What happens after the deadline is missed become immaterial to the federal election, i.e., meaningless details to the larger plan. Maybe I serve some time like so many of Trump’s collaborators. Maybe not. Remember, this is an attempted coup. Laws are to be used to leverage the attempt when it’s useful and ignored when it’s not. It’s a bit like revolution: if it’s successful, the former laws no longer apply anyway. It’s a gambit.
The problem you have here is the same problem Democrats have had for almost a decade. You keep saying “but there are rules,” and I keep telling you, “what if I don’t give a fuck about your rules unless they serve my goal of overthrowing your rules?” You’re left screaming about how it’s not fair. Meanwhile, it installs Trump as president, so who cares how the case plays out? The damage is irrevocably done.
You are 100% correct to worry about this, of course. That said, I don’t see something more than 3.6M people (half the registered voters of Michigan to just pick that one state as an example) seeing themselves disenfranchised like in your scenario being silent about it and calmly waiting for the courts. I guess I’m saying the perpetrators of such a scheme would have more to worry about than just losing a court case.
On a side note, its interesting that in Michigan it appears that as of today 41% of registered voters have already voted.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/election-results-and-data/voter-participation-dashboardThat’s definitely true, and valuable to keep in mind. That said, it’s a stall game for arguably the most powerful position in the world, and disenfranchisement is quite literally the whole point. Michiganders might protest en masse or whatever, but unless it somehow produces certified election results before Dec. 14, I’m not sure it will matter as much as it should. Politicians are surprisingly good at hiding, especially with the whole party apparatus helping and the presidency on the line.
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
Meeting the federal deadline for state-level certification in almost every state is considered a ministerial duty. That means that it would only involve civil or administrative penalties, i.e., a light slap on the wrist at best. For criminal conduct, it would need to be elevated to obstruction of federal elections. This would be a federal crime and therefore pardonable.
Thanks for the link, but the plan The Nation outlined doesn’t require fake electors or fraudulent documents. The only potential misdeed here is simply a failure to meet a federal deadline. It’s related to the previous attempt insofar as it’s an attempt to undermine American democracy, but this current plan is much more sound, involves much less legal culpability on the part of anyone involved, and generally appears to be constitutionally valid. Which is to say, the Republicans learned. The Democrats did not.
The bottom line is, overthrowing democracy is either a meaningless administrative infraction or a federal crime that will be pardoned. See the problem?
Yes, good points. I posted the comment originally because it is alarming.
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.
As much as I would love this the rest of the republican fuckers would never allow it cause then they would lose whatever power they have left since Texas has been solid red for ages now.
So many millions of innocents would be caught up in this. I understand the sentiment but I don’t like this at all.
This is getting out of hand!
Media companies: but think how many clicks we will get!
Scary shit
Quick! Vote!
Done! Now what?
In all seriousness, you can phone bank.
Ships and guns!
Definitely guns. Go to any of the unregulated forums and read what people are saying.
They want to kill you.If they try that with me and mine, they will find out that at least some liberals are armed, and damn good shots. Go .308 or go home.
I just got a new 6.5 Creedmoor for deer season and I’ve been really pleased with it so far. I’ve only had it to the range to zero it in so far but it shoots really nice, I’m excited to take it out and try to get something in a few weeks.
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.
This invites running the election over and over until the party already in power gets the results they want.
If it isn’t what the “little secret” meant, it damn sure is now. This is a brilliant plan.
.
The Nation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Nation:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the “About” section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication’s opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/
