Election integrity and the transfer of power

[Little Raven]

Fortunately, I'm 99% sure his mouth is writing checks his administration can't cash....but boy, what a terrible, TERRIBLE thing for a President to even imply.

[Holman]

This is the point where anyone who isn't on board with this should come forward as a whistleblower, and any former administration officials should trumpet what they know.

You might imagine that there aren't any left, but it's surprising how many mid-level staffers have come out in just the past few weeks to declare that they've seen crimes and abuse of power.

[Unagi]

it feels like if we collectively survive this election, there's going to be a point in late 2021 or 2022 when people in the know start coming out and commenting on how close we were to flying off into the abyss right now. Sort of like how people came out long after the 2008/9 financial crisis and said there was almost total collapse behind the scenes, but this feels worse.

Cuban missile crisis

[Holman]

The reporter fucking botched the question, though. They always do.

Asking if he will guarantee a peaceful transfer of power "because there are riots" is the stupidest possible formulation here. It throws the fault onto protesters and it allows Trump to tilt towards a law'n'order answer.

The question should be, "If Biden wins the electoral college, will you work to facilitate the turnover of the administration?" Sure, Trump can still claim that a Biden win will never happen, but he doesn't have the out of blaming protesters for trouble.

[Tao]

In related news he has also now stated he is pushing for Supreme Court nomination because he doesn't trust the electoral process and expects this will go to the Supreme Court. One could interpret that as him not wanting a 4-4 split but I read it as he thinks he's buying a Judge.

[malchior]

Narrator: Later when Trump didn't leave, this cult follower repeated whatever bullshit justification Trump's minions rolled out

[Little Raven]

One could interpret that as him not wanting a 4-4 split but I read it as he thinks he's buying a Judge.

Fortunately, like so very many things, Trump fundamentally misunderstands what the Court does or how Justices work. Possibly both.

[Holman]

One could interpret that as him not wanting a 4-4 split but I read it as he thinks he's buying a Judge.

Fortunately, like so very many things, Trump fundamentally misunderstands what the Court does or how Justices work. Possibly both.

The more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?

[Skinypupy]

I’d love to say that I thought the SCOTUS would uphold the actual rule of law and now Trump’s insane fever dreams.

I absolutely do not have that confidence.

[Little Raven]

The more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?

I honestly don't think there's a plan, because even assuming that 5 Justices are somehow purchased, (something we have absolutely no evidence for) there's virtually no scenario that can be engineered where the Supreme Court is in a position to give Trump anything. I mean, if Trump is strong enough to seize the Presidency, he doesn't really care what the Supreme Court says. (right, Jackson?) And if he isn't, there really isn't any feasible scenario where the Court can gift it to him. That's....not what the Court does. At all.

[Holman]

The more important question is, What's he planning that he thinks John Roberts will oppose?

I honestly don't think there's a plan, because even assuming that 5 Justices are somehow purchased, (something we have absolutely no evidence for) there's virtually no scenario that can be engineered where the Supreme Court is in a position to give Trump anything. I mean, if Trump is strong enough to seize the Presidency, he doesn't really care what the Supreme Court says. (right, Jackson?) And if he isn't, there really isn't any feasible scenario where the Court can gift it to him. That's....not what the Court does. At all.

Where were you in December 2000?

[gbasden]

Every week that goes by I'm moving closer and closer to going full Drazzil. :/

Torches. Pitchforks.

[Little Raven]

Where were you in December 2000?

Yes, that happened. Once. In almost 250 years. It required a truly stunning number of events to line up perfectly to put that question before the Court - that's not a scenario that can be engineered reliably. And if we assume that Trump really CAN engineer that, then we may as well pack up and go home, because there's no way to stop an evil genius of that magnitude.

[Kraken]

Every week that goes by I'm moving closer and closer to going full Drazzil. :/

Torches. Pitchforks.

Drazzil 2024: I Told You So

[Paingod]

Every week that goes by I'm moving closer and closer to going full Drazzil. :/

Torches. Pitchforks.

Drazzil 2024: I Told You So

I believe the full text is:

Drazzil 20:24
Look upon the words I have cast forth
Know that there was wisdom
None hath heeded it, none hath listened
I did warn thee, so sayeth the prophet

[malchior]

The Breonna Taylor story was important but it seems more important that there is a 5-alarm fire burning in our Republic.

[Holman]

Where were you in December 2000?

Yes, that happened. Once. In almost 250 years. It required a truly stunning number of events to line up perfectly to put that question before the Court - that's not a scenario that can be engineered reliably. And if we assume that Trump really CAN engineer that, then we may as well pack up and go home, because there's no way to stop an evil genius of that magnitude.

All it required was a delayed ballot-count, a willingness on the part of right-wing operatives (including Roger Stone) to storm the barricades with yelling and lawsuits, a compliant right-wing Secretary of State, and a Supreme Court willing to treat a constitutional crisis like a procedural one.

Which of those elements are missing today?

[Carpet_pissr]

we may as well pack up and go home.

Way ahead of ya, compadre! Enjoy living in Gilead! :p. (1/2 jk)

[YellowKing]

Good rebuttal to The Atlantic article about Trump stealing the election:



TLDR -

1) Trump's comments are another example of him manipulating the media to turn his horrible poll numbers into a position of strength. In a couple of days he's gone from "consistently behind in the polls" to "in a position to claim the election no matter what."

2) The "slate of electors" gambit would require a series of improbable outcomes that also depend on unlikely hypotheticals

3) PA, MI, and WI all have legislatures have veto-proof majorities that would prevent this scenario from happening at the outset.

[pr0ner]

So, nine ballots, all marked for Donald Trump, were found discarded somewhere in Luzerne County, PA.

Who was voted for on these ballots should never have been released, but that's too late now. What it has done is allow Trump's campaign and Charlie Kirk to amplify this like Democrats are trying to steal the election.

Note that the elections director in Luzerne has no present party affiliation but ran for a county seat as a Republican.

[LawBeefaroni]

Buckle up, folks. Gonna be like this from here on out.

[Jaymann]

Fire that guy that's running the Post Office!

[pr0ner]

DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.

An updated release is back up on DOJ's site.

Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!

[Smoove_B]

We had a local story in my GOP stronghold corner of NJ where an uncounted box of ~1700 primary ballots from July were found last week. The county election official said they were tallied and no changes would be necessary based on totals, but magically this election official just announced they're retiring after 14 years on the job.

I have no doubts stories like this are going to keep circulating, yes.

[LawBeefaroni]

DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.

Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!

The misinformation is out there though, mission accomplished.

[LordMortis]

DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.

Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!

The misinformation is out there though, mission accomplished.

Color me surprised



(Though I am relieved. Any real ammo is just magnified by 1000)

[Holman]

DOJ took down the press release. It was apparently inaccurate.

Further investigation seems to indicate these were most likely primary ballots, as PA's general election ballots weren't cleared for printing until last week!

The misinformation is out there though, mission accomplished.

And with the weight of a major government alert.

Under normal circumstances, would the DOJ have created a news event about nine misplaced ballots?

[malchior]

Good rebuttal to The Atlantic article about Trump stealing the election:

<snip Tweet>

TLDR -

1) Trump's comments are another example of him manipulating the media to turn his horrible poll numbers into a position of strength. In a couple of days he's gone from "consistently behind in the polls" to "in a position to claim the election no matter what."

2) The "slate of electors" gambit would require a series of improbable outcomes that also depend on unlikely hypotheticals

3) PA, MI, and WI all have legislatures have veto-proof majorities that would prevent this scenario from happening at the outset.

She makes sense but there is a flaw in the reasoning. They all assume the law isn't going to break down. That is the problem with all these the 'center will hold' analyses. They all presume that the institutions...well...hold. And they most likely will. However, the small chance that they fail and do not prevent the *threat* lead to a black swan catastrophe. That is why we need to take the risk seriously. Deadly seriously. That means vote. It means positioning tiger teams of lawyers. The whole shebang. Telling people to calm down and that the risk is small is minimizing the emergency situation we are in the middle of. I'd rather this be remembered as a Y2K moment rather than a 9/11 one. I've said it before but people are just shit at gauging risk and this is a decent example of it.

[Isgrimnur]

MattWolking

He memory-holed his tweet:

[Little Raven]

Which of those elements are missing today?

You miss the most important element - it required a near-perfect balance of electoral votes, to the point where a single state would swing the balance, and THEN it required an almost unbelievably tiny margin of victory within that state, to the point were a few hundred ballots could conceivably alter the outcome.

None of the polls suggest this is remotely likely.

[Jaymann]

So let me get this straight, Trump plans to dispute the results of the Presidential election, while those same ballots will be electing members of Congress.

[gameoverman]

Which of those elements are missing today?

You miss the most important element - it required a near-perfect balance of electoral votes, to the point where a single state would swing the balance, and THEN it required an almost unbelievably tiny margin of victory within that state, to the point were a few hundred ballots could conceivably alter the outcome.

None of the polls suggest this is remotely likely.

I look at it a bit differently. You are talking about a specific set of circumstances in one election. That, to me, doesn't mean for something like this to happen it can only happen in that way. If it can happen that way, it can happen in other ways. It sounds to me like the Republicans have decided that they will not accept defeat even if it's legitimate 'will of the people' defeat. I expect they are working out various scenarios to see which ones look the most productive, and I use the plural 'ones'. I'm sure they have their lawyers figuring out what ifs based on getting the election results in the Supreme Court's hands. Until Republicans made up a rule preventing Obama from appointing a justice there was no such rule. And now that a Republican is President there isn't such a rule again. Don't underestimate their willingness to hack out a path if it's the path they want.

[malchior]

That, to me, doesn't mean for something like this to happen it can only happen in that way. If it can happen that way, it can happen in other ways. It sounds to me like the Republicans have decided that they will not accept defeat even if it's legitimate 'will of the people' defeat. I expect they are working out various scenarios to see which ones look the most productive, and I use the plural 'ones'. I'm sure they have their lawyers figuring out what ifs based on getting the election results in the Supreme Court's hands. Until Republicans made up a rule preventing Obama from appointing a justice there was no such rule. And now that a Republican is President there isn't such a rule again. Don't underestimate their willingness to hack out a path if it's the path they want.

I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.

Edit: Waiting for the clip but this morning there are reports that Mark Meadows used the withdrawn DOJ statement about ballots for Trump thrown out in PA as *justification* for the rationale Trump is using to make his statements about waiting to see. They are expecting widespread voter fraud. He also made comments about how the FBI is terrible at finding voter fraud. They are preparing the ground. People just aren't ready for what is about to happen. Luckily, we still have time to prepare.

[Dogstar]

I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.

Edit: Waiting for the clip but this morning there are reports that Mark Meadows used the withdrawn DOJ statement about ballots for Trump thrown out in PA as *justification* for the rationale Trump is using to make his statements about waiting to see. They are expecting widespread voter fraud. He also made comments about how the FBI is terrible at finding voter fraud. They are preparing the ground. People just aren't ready for what is about to happen. Luckily, we still have time to prepare.

I regret that this forum doesn't have likes. I'd like to believe Little Raven and Ms. Kanefield and numerous others who argue that we have rules and institutions to guide us through this process and it would take an extremely narrow set of circumstances to get us to a calamitous event. However, if there's one thing I've learned these past four years of the Trump administration, it's that rules and norms get eroded or smashed on a regular basis with few, if any, penalties. To think that the current administration wouldn't turn the dial up to 10 in an attempt to maintain power (and keep Trump out of jail) after seeing all of that, and to underestimate the damage it will cause... . Don't get me wrong -- I'm not down about voting. I think it's critical that everyone votes. Just fully expect malevolent and bad-faith actions that will take a toll. As Mr. Fed said, "Even in the best case scenario, we're not coming all the way back from this."

[noxiousdog]

I'm with you on this one. In the end, a President is making an implied threat against the nation. It doesn't matter how outlandish it appears. It is unprecedented and its dangerous. In the end, he doesn't even have to succeed at getting it to the Supreme Court. If and when he doesn't concede and fights the election it will do immense amounts of damage. The chaos itself may give him opportunities. Can anyone imagine what happens when the entire Executive branch locks the Biden transition team out? And then use that as some argument about how they aren't ready to assume power? One off the cuff example but it is the type of thing we may hear during the transition. Chances are low that it will be uneventful. It is not like he is someone with has not demonstrated the capacity and willingness to abuse his power.

Edit: Waiting for the clip but this morning there are reports that Mark Meadows used the withdrawn DOJ statement about ballots for Trump thrown out in PA as *justification* for the rationale Trump is using to make his statements about waiting to see. They are expecting widespread voter fraud. He also made comments about how the FBI is terrible at finding voter fraud. They are preparing the ground. People just aren't ready for what is about to happen. Luckily, we still have time to prepare.

I regret that this forum doesn't have likes. I'd like to believe Little Raven and Ms. Kanefield and numerous others who argue that we have rules and institutions to guide us through this process and it would take an extremely narrow set of circumstances to get us to a calamitous event. However, if there's one thing I've learned these past four years of the Trump administration, it's that rules and norms get eroded or smashed on a regular basis with few, if any, penalties. To think that the current administration wouldn't turn the dial up to 10 in an attempt to maintain power (and keep Trump out of jail) after seeing all of that, and to underestimate the damage it will cause... . Don't get me wrong -- I'm not down about voting. I think it's critical that everyone votes. Just fully expect malevolent and bad-faith actions that will take a toll. As Mr. Fed said, "Even in the best case scenario, we're not coming all the way back from this."

Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.

[Paingod]

So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.

How many times does the system need to utterly fail before you call it a failure?

Trump has exposed a mountain of flaws in our government that were plastered over with a glaze of "norms and expectations" that others before him were generally willing to play by. He has absolutely shattered that.

I really don't know how we correct that and come back. There's no morality test to get into government and it's impossible to imagine every scenario that can be exploited by someone without morals. Up until 2016 elections were supposed to be the closest thing we had to a morality test. Somehow, in 4 years, morality has become a character flaw on one side of the political spectrum.

[Holman]

Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.

When the bosses skate and a couple of flunkies get prison time, that's not taking down the Mafia.

[Dogstar]

Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.

My apologies (and I'm not being sarcastic) for not being specific enough. Yes, Manafort, Parnas, Flynn and Stone (and a few others as well) are facing or have faced the criminal justice system. However, those penalties have not been significant enough or hit key players that would impede corrupting influences within the administration nor deter administration figures from breaking norms and rules for the administration. I'm looking at Wolf, the acting DHS Secretary, as well as William Barr, the head of the DOJ. I'm looking at hand-waving away the Hatch Act, the conflicts of interest, the dismissal of testifying before Congress (and complying with subpoenas), the enrichment of the President and his family's businesses, and so on and so forth. So why wouldn't they push the norms in terms of voter intimidation, disinformation about ballots, raging against mail-in ballots, alternate slates of electors, etc. if it helps them maintain power and keeps things going?

[noxiousdog]

Except that's not true. So far, one guy got off (Trump) and another got pardoned (Stone). Everyone else went to jail.

My apologies (and I'm not being sarcastic) for not being specific enough. Yes, Manafort, Parnas, Flynn and Stone (and a few others as well) are facing or have faced the criminal justice system. However, those penalties have not been significant enough or hit key players that would impede corrupting influences within the administration nor deter administration figures from breaking norms and rules for the administration. I'm looking at Wolf, the acting DHS Secretary, as well as William Barr, the head of the DOJ. I'm looking at hand-waving away the Hatch Act, the conflicts of interest, the dismissal of testifying before Congress (and complying with subpoenas), the enrichment of the President and his family's businesses, and so on and so forth. So why wouldn't they push the norms in terms of voter intimidation, disinformation about ballots, raging against mail-in ballots, alternate slates of electors, etc. if it helps them maintain power and keeps things going?

Those items at the end are not the end of a democracy. They show a corrupt political party, which if you remember, got crushed in 2018 and is more than likely going to happen again in 2020.

Yes there are reasons to be worried. There are also reasons to be optimistic. I don't think there are reasons to panic (unless it helps get young folks out to vote. Then please, panic.)

[Paingod]

I think panic is on the same scale as worried, but a few steps above it. My level of concern over this upcoming election is pegged at about a 7.5 on the emotional involvement scale. 0 being utterly indifferent and 10 being outraged to the point of being willing to join an armed rebellion. I wouldn't call myself panicked, but I'm not far from it. I'm certainly beyond hands-wringing concern and am actively angry.

A big part of my anger isn't even directed at the politicians. It's aimed squarely at the people, the millions, still supporting them. The people who have happily thrown themselves behind a bully, adulterer, narcissistic, liar, criminal, con artist, scammer, racist, bigot, sexist, bumbling moron. The people wallowing in the glory of the hate they've fostered and loving the way it makes everyone else feel.

On the flip side, what character flaws - fundamental aspects of his being - did Republicans hate about Obama? Not his policies. Aside from that, they grasped at straws like birth certificates and clothing to rail against him as a person.

I hate Trump's policies almost as much as I hate him as a human being. As a human being, he's utterly disgusting. You can't say that about Obama or Biden. Yet there they are, lining up to fawn over Trump.