Cohen Takes It All Back–20 States Consider Taking Trump Off Ballot–Trump Says He Has The Goods..

IWB ^ | Ruby Henley

[davikkm]

I have a little bit of everything in this report. Too little time, but so much to say.

A little tidbit of information I find interesting is what is in the McClatchey Report – Quote –

Mueller says Michael Cohen was not in Prague in 2016, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS PHONE?

The Mueller report states Cohen was not in Prague: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the report says on page 139. That statement is part of a review of Cohen’s testimony to the investigators and is included in a section about what the Mueller team called Cohen’s “false statements to Congress minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project.”

The report was silent on the issue of a device linked to Cohen pinging from the Czech Republic, and whether the investigation was ever presented with such evidence…

“The Mueller report states Mr. Cohen was not in Prague. It makes no statement on whether the investigation ever had evidence that Mr. Cohen’s phone pinged in or near Prague, as McClatchy reported,” said Kristin Roberts, McClatchy’s East Region Editor.

[hanamizu]

The Constitution says each voting DISTRICT, not the State, puts Trump on the ballot,

---

I believe you are wrong. The Constitution does not even require a popular election for picking Presidential Electors although every state obviously chooses to do so. The method for choosing electors is reserved for the state legislatures. If a state chooses not to place President Trump on the ballot, it is no doubt wrong, but I doubt it is Unconstitutional.

The state of California has stated that only the top two vote getters in a primary are placed on the ballot. This has resulted in no Republican appearing on the ballot for U.S. Senate in the last two elections. They have not (yet) extended this idea to Presidential Primaries, but nothing in the Constitution stops them. If the legislature passes a law requiring release of tax returns to get on the ballot, who is to stop them?

[TheNext]

Census determines representation.

President or House are determined by representation districts.

Districts have Electors.

Electors deliver sealed tallies.

None of this is State controlled.

A voting District / County, usually rural countryside, signs and seals their chosen vote, keeping a duplicate.

If any State Democrat legislature, delivers an alternate vote, they go to prison. A Compact of interstate Districts, continues to publish that their chosen vote was fraudulently altered.

ELECTIONS ARE NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

[hanamizu]

Districts have Electors.

---

No, states have electors, not districts. A state has as many Electors as it has Representatives and Senators but that does not mean that Electors are somehow tied to Congressional district—unless the state decides to award electors by districts. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine do. The states’ legislatures are given the power by the Constitution to determine how Electors are chosen.

[Stentor]

This article is part of another phase of the attempt to have an orderly retreat. They’ll keep falling back until they hit a river too deep to cross.

[TheNext]

And for 200 years every State has chosen to assign Electors identically. That is precident.

Each District vote counts, is tallied, is signed, is sealed.

Period.

[hanamizu]

Electors are chosen by the parties, not the state legislatures. Each party’s slate of Electors is voted upon by the whole state—not a a district by district basis. All but two states award their Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis. Only two states award Electors based on the winner of each Congressional District’s vote, with the two other Electoral votes awarded to the statewide winner—which would seem to a a fairer way to do it—but 48 state legislatures have not chosen to take that route.

State legislatures are not bound by precedent. The Constitution gives them the power to award their state’s Electoral votes anyway they see fit. Congress still would have a say in whether or not to accept the state’s Electors. It happened in 1876.

[Svartalfiar]

"It’s completely unconstitutional."

I hope so, but the Dems might argue that people can still write-in Trump, so no one's vote is being taken away. Still, a good lawyer could argue that forcing people to write-in Trump constitutes a partisan effort to "hide" him from the voters and hence tilt the election.

How would this be Constitutional? There's nothing saying that you even have to vote.. A State could pass legislation saying their Electors have to come from the Dem (or Repub) slate of Electors, and that would be perfectly Constitutional. No general election is even required!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

However, any bills that specifically only remove Trump from the ballot would be a somewhat grey area, as a decent lawyer could argue that falls under a bill of attainder. Which, of course, States are banned from under 1/10/1.