Batt Boy
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 268
Is this Trump's endgame?
en.wikipedia.org
Ausnahmezustand
- Thread starter Batt Boy
- Start date
- Replies: 9
- Views: 152
- Messages
- 8,206
Unbowed by Jan. 6 Charges, Republicans Pursue Plans to Contest a Trump Defeat
Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to try to short-circuit the election system, if he does not win.
"
The Republican Party and its conservative allies are engaged in an unprecedented legal campaign targeting the American voting system. Their wide-ranging and methodical effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election that they argue, falsely, is already being rigged against former President Donald J. Trump.
The campaign involves a powerful network of Republican lawyers and activist groups, working loosely in concert with the Republican National Committee. Many of the key players were active in Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But unlike the chaotic and improvised challenge four years ago, the new drive includes a systematic search for any vulnerability in the nation’s patchwork election system.
Mr. Trump’s allies have followed a two-pronged approach: restricting voting for partisan advantage ahead of Election Day and short-circuiting the process of ratifying the winner afterward, if Mr. Trump loses. The latter strategy involves an ambitious — and legally dubious — attempt to reimagine decades of settled law dictating how results are officially certified in the weeks before the transfer of power. ..."
- Messages
- 8,206
"...
They have installed a new “senior counsel for election integrity” at the Republican Party headquarters: Christina Bobb, a lawyer indicted in Arizona on charges related to Mr. Trump’s attempt to dispute his defeat there. She has pleaded not guilty.
Cleta Mitchell, a Republican lawyer who was part of Mr. Trump’s push to overturn his loss in Georgia now runs the Election Integrity Network, a group that is advising activists on how to challenge voters’ eligibility.
The Heritage Foundation has provided institutional support and planning. Last month, the group war-gamed exercises exploring scenarios in a disputed election.
“What we need is everybody to be in the same boat, in the same direction and rowing at more or less the same time,” Mr. Whatley told reporters recently, adding that the party was working with governors, legislators and local boards of election. “Where we can’t get what we need in terms of our comfort level with state laws, we’re going to be filing those lawsuits.”
... Activists across the country, often with guidance from the Election Integrity Network, have been challenging voter registrations en masse, often using faulty databases to question voters who are eligible to vote. ..."
They have installed a new “senior counsel for election integrity” at the Republican Party headquarters: Christina Bobb, a lawyer indicted in Arizona on charges related to Mr. Trump’s attempt to dispute his defeat there. She has pleaded not guilty.
Cleta Mitchell, a Republican lawyer who was part of Mr. Trump’s push to overturn his loss in Georgia now runs the Election Integrity Network, a group that is advising activists on how to challenge voters’ eligibility.
The Heritage Foundation has provided institutional support and planning. Last month, the group war-gamed exercises exploring scenarios in a disputed election.
“What we need is everybody to be in the same boat, in the same direction and rowing at more or less the same time,” Mr. Whatley told reporters recently, adding that the party was working with governors, legislators and local boards of election. “Where we can’t get what we need in terms of our comfort level with state laws, we’re going to be filing those lawsuits.”
... Activists across the country, often with guidance from the Election Integrity Network, have been challenging voter registrations en masse, often using faulty databases to question voters who are eligible to vote. ..."
- Messages
- 8,206
(cont'd)
"...
Voting against certification was practically unheard-of in presidential elections until late in 2020, when Trump allies sought to block certification in Wayne County, Mich. — and until Jan. 6, 2021, when thousands of protesters sought to block Congress from certifying the election results.
Since then, members of state and local boards have voted against certification more than 20 times across eight states, according to a list compiled by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that tracks antidemocratic trends in the United States. In most cases, the board members were outvoted or, when they weren’t, courts or officials forced them to certify the vote. (In one case, in Arizona, two board members who voted against certification have been criminally charged, pleading not guilty.)
But Republicans and their allies are working to redefine the board members’ duties.
Election lawyers are carefully watching a dispute in Fulton County, Ga. A pro-Trump group, the America First Policy Institute, filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of a conservative member of the local elections board who has refused to certify primary results this year.
The board member, Julie Adams, who has been active with the Election Integrity Network, said that she was not provided with the reams of voter information she wanted to personally determine the results were accurate and not marred by fraud.
The lawsuit said that she was within her rights to conduct such an investigation because, as part of her oath, she swore to “prevent fraud, deceit and abuse.”
The Democratic National Committee, which intervened in the case, countered that “members have no discretion to refuse to certify election results.” Giving them that power, they wrote in court papers, “would invite chaos.”
Chaos has already erupted in northern Nevada’s Washoe County, where a fight over certification has prompted a moderate Republican board member to vote against certifying her own victory.
The board member, Clara Andriola, was seen as a firewall against a right-wing, anti-certification faction on the commission. A group connected to the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State even ran ads supporting her in her primary race, worried that her defeat would jeopardize a smooth approval of presidential results in the fall.
Two weeks ago, Ms. Andriola voted with the two Democrats to certify the election results showing her winning handily. But on Tuesday, after a recount affirmed her victory, she voted against certification, bending to pressure from right-wing protesters.
Nevada’s attorney general and its secretary of state, both Democrats, have since asked the State Supreme Court to compel the commission to certify the election as required by law and to clarify that local officials do not have the right to refuse to advance the process.
The results, meanwhile, remain in legal limbo. ..."
"...
Voting against certification was practically unheard-of in presidential elections until late in 2020, when Trump allies sought to block certification in Wayne County, Mich. — and until Jan. 6, 2021, when thousands of protesters sought to block Congress from certifying the election results.
Since then, members of state and local boards have voted against certification more than 20 times across eight states, according to a list compiled by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that tracks antidemocratic trends in the United States. In most cases, the board members were outvoted or, when they weren’t, courts or officials forced them to certify the vote. (In one case, in Arizona, two board members who voted against certification have been criminally charged, pleading not guilty.)
But Republicans and their allies are working to redefine the board members’ duties.
Election lawyers are carefully watching a dispute in Fulton County, Ga. A pro-Trump group, the America First Policy Institute, filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of a conservative member of the local elections board who has refused to certify primary results this year.
The board member, Julie Adams, who has been active with the Election Integrity Network, said that she was not provided with the reams of voter information she wanted to personally determine the results were accurate and not marred by fraud.
The lawsuit said that she was within her rights to conduct such an investigation because, as part of her oath, she swore to “prevent fraud, deceit and abuse.”
The Democratic National Committee, which intervened in the case, countered that “members have no discretion to refuse to certify election results.” Giving them that power, they wrote in court papers, “would invite chaos.”
Chaos has already erupted in northern Nevada’s Washoe County, where a fight over certification has prompted a moderate Republican board member to vote against certifying her own victory.
The board member, Clara Andriola, was seen as a firewall against a right-wing, anti-certification faction on the commission. A group connected to the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State even ran ads supporting her in her primary race, worried that her defeat would jeopardize a smooth approval of presidential results in the fall.
Two weeks ago, Ms. Andriola voted with the two Democrats to certify the election results showing her winning handily. But on Tuesday, after a recount affirmed her victory, she voted against certification, bending to pressure from right-wing protesters.
Nevada’s attorney general and its secretary of state, both Democrats, have since asked the State Supreme Court to compel the commission to certify the election as required by law and to clarify that local officials do not have the right to refuse to advance the process.
The results, meanwhile, remain in legal limbo. ..."
- Messages
- 8,206
"... In 2022, Mr. Biden signed legislation making it harder to challenge the certification process.
The law set a new hard deadline for states to submit their final certified results; this year’s is Dec. 11. The date was intended to give judges and states incentive to settle disputes before the votes at the Electoral College and Congress.
But the law does not say clearly what would happen if a state misses its deadline.
“When deadlines are so tight, delay could really put us in a land of some legal uncertainty,” said Jessica Marsden, a lawyer who oversees elections work at Protect Democracy. “Bad actors might try to exploit that.”
For instance, if the situation in Washoe unfolded the same way this fall, Nevada would have less than a week to resolve the dispute. A resolution could require a court order — which could be followed by appeals or, potentially, by a refusal to abide a judge’s orders.
If Mr. Biden [this article was written prior to his withdrawal from the race] were to win Nevada, and if the state failed to send complete results on time, Ms. Marsden said that Republicans in the House and the Senate could seize on a missed deadline to justify rejecting Electoral College votes. (Under the law, a majority in both the House and Senate is needed to reject a state’s electors.)
“There is not a legal way to disrupt certification,’’ said Wendy R. Weiser, of the Brennan Center, a group that tracks election issues. “But if people in these positions believe there are fewer limits on what they can do and they have support for taking actions against the law, that will increase the likelihood we end up in a crisis situation.” ..."
The law set a new hard deadline for states to submit their final certified results; this year’s is Dec. 11. The date was intended to give judges and states incentive to settle disputes before the votes at the Electoral College and Congress.
But the law does not say clearly what would happen if a state misses its deadline.
“When deadlines are so tight, delay could really put us in a land of some legal uncertainty,” said Jessica Marsden, a lawyer who oversees elections work at Protect Democracy. “Bad actors might try to exploit that.”
For instance, if the situation in Washoe unfolded the same way this fall, Nevada would have less than a week to resolve the dispute. A resolution could require a court order — which could be followed by appeals or, potentially, by a refusal to abide a judge’s orders.
If Mr. Biden [this article was written prior to his withdrawal from the race] were to win Nevada, and if the state failed to send complete results on time, Ms. Marsden said that Republicans in the House and the Senate could seize on a missed deadline to justify rejecting Electoral College votes. (Under the law, a majority in both the House and Senate is needed to reject a state’s electors.)
“There is not a legal way to disrupt certification,’’ said Wendy R. Weiser, of the Brennan Center, a group that tracks election issues. “But if people in these positions believe there are fewer limits on what they can do and they have support for taking actions against the law, that will increase the likelihood we end up in a crisis situation.” ..."
- Messages
- 8,206
I don't know that Trump has an organized endgame in mind, other than him being emperor of the known universe, but plenty of those around him have made quite a few plans. He would have to regain power to take the next step you suggest with your link, however.Is this Trump's endgame?
State of exception - Wikipedia
- Messages
- 8,206
"Three days before Joe Biden’s inauguration, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. She told him that some Republican members of Congress believed the only path for President Donald Trump to change the outcome of the 2020 election and stay in power was for him to declare martial law.
The text from Greene (R-Ga.), revealed this week, brought to the fore the chorus of Republicans who were publicly and privately advocating for Trump to try to use the military and defense apparatus of the U.S. government to strong-arm his way past an electoral defeat.
... There is no proof Trump ordered any U.S. official to invoke emergency powers, and many of Trump’s advisers and attorneys say privately they would have balked at such a request. An adviser to former vice president Mike Pence said he was never asked to invoke any emergency powers. But several advisers said that Trump was interested in seizing voting machines and that he did at times suggest that the election should be done over. ..."
"
President Donald Trump convened a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, including lawyer Sidney Powell and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter said, describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump’s aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn’s more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.
Flynn had suggested earlier this week that Trump could invoke martial law as part of his efforts to overturn the election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden – an idea that arose again during the meeting in the Oval Office, one of the people said. It wasn’t clear whether Trump endorsed the idea, but others in the room forcefully pushed back and shot it down. ..."
----
Those "others in the room" won't be there in a new Trump term.
The text from Greene (R-Ga.), revealed this week, brought to the fore the chorus of Republicans who were publicly and privately advocating for Trump to try to use the military and defense apparatus of the U.S. government to strong-arm his way past an electoral defeat.
... There is no proof Trump ordered any U.S. official to invoke emergency powers, and many of Trump’s advisers and attorneys say privately they would have balked at such a request. An adviser to former vice president Mike Pence said he was never asked to invoke any emergency powers. But several advisers said that Trump was interested in seizing voting machines and that he did at times suggest that the election should be done over. ..."
Heated Oval Office meeting included talk of special counsel, martial law as Trump advisers clash
"
President Donald Trump convened a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, including lawyer Sidney Powell and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter said, describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump’s aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn’s more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.
Flynn had suggested earlier this week that Trump could invoke martial law as part of his efforts to overturn the election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden – an idea that arose again during the meeting in the Oval Office, one of the people said. It wasn’t clear whether Trump endorsed the idea, but others in the room forcefully pushed back and shot it down. ..."
----
Those "others in the room" won't be there in a new Trump term.
- Messages
- 747
I remember somebody (probably you) posted a long recap of this meeting shortly after it happened. It was scary enough back then when the Koolaid drinkers (Powell & Co.) were getting strong pushback from the sane members in the room, we all know what it's going to look like when only the Koolaid drinkers remain...
- Messages
- 1,525
Sometimes these threads require more thinking than I'm willing to give at this point in life.Is this Trump's endgame?
State of exception - Wikipedia
