2020 Election Fallout 14: Arrests And The Big Lie

[fraurosena]

There's no specific thread where this should go, but as this is as good a place as any and this is a must read thread, here it goes. It explains so much.

No unrolled version available yet. 

Ps: the comments are also worth a read.

[Audrey2]

Thank you to those who post the unrolled thread as it becomes available. I refuse to sign up for a Twitter account and so I frequently can't read a whole thread if it's not unrolled.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The threat of Trump illegally taking power in 2025 is real. Here’s what Congress can do."

Quote

The threat of election subversion — in particular, the threat that Donald Trump will try to illegally seize power on Jan. 6, 2025 — is real and dire. There are three things that Congress can do to protect against the danger that Trump will succeed next time where he failed previously in having Congress declare him the winner of an election he didn’t win.

These measures are my main takeaways from a conference last week organized by University of California at Irvine professor Richard L. Hasen on election subversion. They are: modernizing the law that governs the certification of the election; focusing the election reform debate on measures that protect honest vote-counting; and changing election-counting rules so that candidates must win a majority of votes in November.

The conference’s clear theme was that Trump is endeavoring an illegitimate comeback by putting into office, both in Congress and state government, lieutenants loyal to him, not to the Constitution — in other words, willing to perpetrate “big lie” 2.0, that Trump could only lose if the election is stolen from him, again. There was more consensus on the diagnosis, however, than on the necessary cures. In my assessment, these include:

Modernizing the antiquated and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887. This is the law that invited the Jan. 6 insurrection by making it too easy for members of Congress to object to counting states’ electoral votes. Congress must replace this convoluted statute by making it clear, in 21st-century language, that Congress will not second-guess states’ appointments of electors.

Instead, the new version should commit Congress to accept a state’s own resolution of a dispute over appointment of electors. If a federal court declares that the state has acted unconstitutionally, Congress should respect the federal court’s conclusion. But the Constitution gives Congress no power, when meeting to count electoral votes, to re-litigate whether state officials obeyed state law in appointing electors. This is the best reading of current law, but the revised Electoral Count Act should make that indisputably clear.

Is it possible to achieve this rewrite in our partisan era? As several conference participants noted, a cross-party coalition of the remaining Republicans loyal to the Constitution rather than to Trump should be able to muster a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate to clarify the law.

Focus on enacting those parts of the Freedom to Vote bill that directly safeguard the honest counting of votes and certification of results. The new Senate bill takes steps to secure the integrity of votes recorded on ballots — and the officials who count them — and provides for genuine audits. Yes, there is the need to guarantee the right to cast a ballot, and some at the conference made the case that it’s pointless to protect vote-counting without a genuine right to vote.

But as New York University law professor Richard Pildes observed, there are different ways to cast a vote. In-person early voting reduces the risk of election subversion much more than absentee voting, because it’s easier to exploit the vulnerabilities of absentee voting.

And that provides the potential outlines of a deal between Constitution-loyal Republicans and Democrats: Have Congress require that all voters have an adequate opportunity to cast an in-person ballot, leave states to decide how much absentee voting to provide in addition — and in the process create the legislative space to enact essential vote-counting safeguards.

This is an imminent emergency. Perhaps the ballot-casting rules won’t be as generous as Democrats want. Still, that can’t justify failing to do something to protect vote-counting.

Changing election rules to require that members of Congress win a majority in the general election, not just a mere plurality. Who sits in Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, will make a difference on whether the republic is in danger.

At least one conference participant voiced the view that Democrats must keep control of Congress for the republic to be safe. But others, including prominent democracy scholars Steven Levitsky of Harvard and Larry Diamond of Stanford, expressed the opposite view: that only with sufficient numbers of Constitution-loyal Republicans in Congress can a pro-democracy coalition protect against the risk of a successful coup. Democrats cannot guarantee themselves the majority in both congressional chambers on Jan. 6, 2025.

Diamond thus urged the adoption of ranked-choice voting as the way to enable Constitution-loyal Republicans to show that a majority of general-election voters prefer them to Trump-loyal Republicans. Although Congress won’t — and, for federalism reasons, shouldn’t — require all states to use ranked-choice voting, it could require its members to win a majority of general-election votes, letting states choose how to implement a majority-winner rule.

That move would allow Constitution loyalists, such as Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), to prevail without needing to win a Trump-dominated primary. Although the existing electoral system is so entrenched that it’s hard to imagine Congress disrupting it, the danger to democracy is acute enough to justify pressing for this Constitution-protecting measure.

In fact, of the three steps Congress can take, this one may be the most important. Laws can be changed. In the end, it is the members of Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, who may be called on to choose whether to obey Trump or the law.

Sadly, I can't imagine most Qpublicans agreeing to any of these ideas.

[Cartmann99]

Spoiler

 

[Ozlsn]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Changing election rules to require that members of Congress win a majority in the general election, not just a mere plurality.

Ok.. could someone translate this for me? How do they get elected if not with a majority? I am confused.

[apple1]

5 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Ok.. could someone translate this for me? How do they get elected if not with a majority? I am confused.

There are (nearly always) more than just two candidates running. One possible scenario is one R, one D, and one I (Independent). If the vote is split between three potentially viable candidates, it's quite likely that no one will get the majority (majority meaning more than 50%). Some states require a run-off election if nobody gets greater than 50%. Some don't.

[Cartmann99]

Witzke currently works as a host on TruNews.

 

[fraurosena]

Just now, Cartmann99 said:

Witzke currently works as a host on TruNews.

 

Prepare yourselves for much more of this type of acusations from all Republicans. This is their gameplay. They will do their utmost to cast as much doubt about the elections as possible. Their ultimate goal is to overthrow all election results that are not in their favor. Many red states have already put laws in place that will allow them to so with impunity.

This is the real coup they are preparing. Threats of a physical coup are a distraction from what they are really up to.

[Howl]

I've been fretting that subpoenas for the Jan 6 Congressional hearings would be ignored right and left, but the Good Guys are on top of it and I don't think there's going to be a lot of flouting the law this time. 

 

 

[JordynDarby5]

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Prepare yourselves for much more of this type of acusations from all Republicans. This is their gameplay. They will do their utmost to cast as much doubt about the elections as possible. Their ultimate goal is to overthrow all election results that are not in their favor. Many red states have already put laws in place that will allow them to so with impunity.

This is the real coup they are preparing. Threats of a physical coup are a distraction from what they are really up to.

I just don't get how its going to work. The only ones who believe that crap are their own followers. So won't that make their own followers less likely to vote? 

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

I just don't get how its going to work. The only ones who believe that crap are their own followers. So won't that make their own followers less likely to vote? 

It’s not about the voters. It’s not even about the number of people who voted. It’s about claiming there is rampant fraud going on and using that argument to declare the official results void and then appoint whomever they chose as winner themselves. There are currently actual laws in place in many of the red states that allow their Congress to actually do that. They will say they can’t believe a Dem won, so there must have been fraud (haven’t they been pointing that out for years?) and the Republican will be appointed instead.
And that is the coup I’m referring to. 

[Howl]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

It’s not even about the number of people who voted. It’s about claiming there is rampant fraud going on and using that argument to declare the official results void and then appoint whomever they chose as winner themselves.

Exactly this.  100% exactly this.  It's terrifying.  My state of Texas it getting ready to start its own fraudit soon and has already implemented more draconian voter suppression laws.  

[Ozlsn]

On 9/30/2021 at 11:12 PM, apple1 said:

There are (nearly always) more than just two candidates running. One possible scenario is one R, one D, and one I (Independent). If the vote is split between three potentially viable candidates, it's quite likely that no one will get the majority (majority meaning more than 50%). Some states require a run-off election if nobody gets greater than 50%. Some don't.

Ah, got it. I'm used to preferential/ranked voting so couldn't work out what they were saying. Pretty common for no candidate to reach 50% before preferences are distributed, uncommon for it to be close enough that all preferences are fully distributed (but exciting to watch when it happens!)

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

There are currently actual laws in place in many of the red states that allow their Congress to actually do that.

That is so weird to me. Congress being able to call another election, ok, but I would think there should be a minimum threshold of provable issues (faulty machines, concerns over count, candidate eligibility etc) and it should be a very high threshold. To appoint someone to an elected position because you don't like the electoral result? Not really a democracy at that point. The Governor-general here does have the power to call a new election, but it has been used exactly once (and while the circumstances were extreme it was still a very controversial call, not least because the extreme circumstances had been created by the political party agitating for the election to be called.)

6 hours ago, Howl said:

Exactly this.  100% exactly this.  It's terrifying.  My state of Texas it getting ready to start its own fraudit soon and has already implemented more draconian voter suppression laws.  

I still feel that electoral rolls should be opt out - that the state should make the effort to ensure that all eligible voters are on the roll*, and that if you want to not be then the onus is on you to opt out. That does assume a certain commitment to democracy that I feel some states are currently lacking though.

*with the caveat that there needs to be the ability to request that your details are not publically available, and with severe penalties for anyone working who has access to the details and releases them.

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I still feel that electoral rolls should be opt out - that the state should make the effort to ensure that all eligible voters are on the roll*, and that if you want to not be then the onus is on you to opt out.

I’m confused. Why would you need to opt out? If you don’t want to vote, just don’t.

Why else are there always reports on voter turnout?

Although… I do understand that people would want to opt out if voter rolls are public— a completely alien concept to me. Are voter rolls public in the US?

[Ozlsn]

Some people don't want their details held by the govt anywhere, and don't want to participate as citizens. In which case fine, but the onus should be on them to remove themselves, not on people who want to participate to jump through hoops to get added. Texan voter rolls certainly appear to be public, no idea about anywhere else.

Ours are.. sort of public, but I'm not sure who exactly can look up what. You can apply to have your details hidden from certain things, which most celebrities and people who need to hide from violent situations do.

[apple1]

6 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Are voter rolls public in the US?

Name and address in my state

[Maggie Mae]

11 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Although… I do understand that people would want to opt out if voter rolls are public— a completely alien concept to me. Are voter rolls public in the US?

Depends on the state. I use a voter records database in my state to find people's address and political affiliation all the time. You can opt-out but not everyone knows about it. 

Everyone in my state is automatically registered when they file for their dividend from the Permanent Fund. It was a big deal and some people were really angry. But people sovereign citizens are usually angry so they made the change to the application form anyway. It doesn't matter in the slightest, people still don't vote. 

[church_of_dog]

In California one can publicly know not just a person's party registration, but if you're on site at the polling place it is posted for all to see WHO HAS VOTED that day to date.

I never understood the reason for this, and it's not recorded or tracked online, it's only posted at the physical polling place.  Now that California has put everyone permanently on mail-in ballot status, I can't imagine how it's useful in any way and probably will not continue.

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

In California one can publicly know not just a person's party registration, but if you're on site at the polling place it is posted for all to see WHO HAS VOTED that day to date.

Wow. We don't have the voter affiliation thing, but having looked again I think you can apply to look up name and address. Polling place data gets broken down after the election to preference level* (well to the point that someone has a majority) but there is no public data about who voted where (actually I don't think there's data on that other than at the level of "x numbers voted at polling place; x numbers voted outside the electorate, x voted absentee/early").

*I was teasing my husband that he had a friend after our local polling place recorded two first preference "shooters and fishers party" preferences - I actually have no idea what his voting preferences were, but having two for that party in our quite suburban area was a surprise (actually having a candidate for that party run in our electorate was a bit unusual, we trend more towards both major parties, at least one minor party, a couple of independents and the TM mob.)

[Howl]

Ooopsy: 

FBI Seizes Phone Of Oath Keepers Lawyer In ‘Seditious Conspiracy’ Investigation   Kellye SoRelle, a volunteer with Lawyers for Trump and general counsel for the Oath Keepers, had her phone seized by the FBI.

 “I have so much information in there - it’s nuts,” Kellye SoRelle told HuffPost about her iPhone.

Seditious conspiracy is some waaaaaay serious legal shit and not something one wants to be accused of or (especially this) convicted. I hope Stewart Rhodes goes to prison.  Here's a bit of info about his role in the insurrection from June 1, 2021, as well as what might be happening with other Oath Keepers. 

Prosecutors begin 'informal plea negotiations' with Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 conspiracy case  Attorneys are discussing the parameters of what plea offers might look like.

[Cartmann99]

 

[Alisamer]

On 10/1/2021 at 1:35 AM, JordynDarby5 said:

I just don't get how its going to work. The only ones who believe that crap are their own followers. So won't that make their own followers less likely to vote? 

We can only hope.

Between the Republicans as a whole sowing doubt in the voting process, and the way they are dying of Covid at several times the rate of Democrats, I would think voting - if done fairly - is likely to continue to swing more blue every time.

The problem is that the Republicans are simultaneously trying to make it harder for people they perceive as Democrats to vote, and putting systems in place that they hope will let them override the peoples' votes so it won't matter how badly they lose. 

Republicans do not care what the American public wants. At all. They only care about keeping power, and keeping their corporate donations rolling in. It's power and money, and nothing else. They might as well be their own branch of the mafia at this point. 

[Ozlsn]

Call me easily amused but that last one really did make me giggle - "Dan, I'm just dropping round your subpoena. Be there in 15".

Links to articles:

Trump tells people to ignore subpoenas

White House waives executive privilege on documents.

Whistleblower makes multiple serious accusations against Capitol police leadership

[GreyhoundFan]

Of course Meadows is fighting testifying before congress, but goes on Faux for a handjob:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

He's sounding worse than ever. This whole"Ashli was a martyr" narrative is just a distraction.