That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.
That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.
The “secret” almost certainly involves a plan to install Trump in the White House if he loses the election—but this plan could be even worse than you think.
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're viewing a single thread.
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. 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.