Posted on 06/03/2021 10:45:27 AM PDT by RandFan
Two days ago, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported that Donald Trump “has been telling a number of people he’s in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August.” In response, many figures on the right inserted their fingers into their ears and started screaming about fake news.
Instead, they should have listened — because Haberman’s reporting was correct. I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed. I can attest, too, that Trump is trying hard to recruit journalists, politicians, and other influential figures to promulgate this belief — not as a fundraising tool or an infantile bit of trolling or a trial balloon, but as a fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The “array” is more like the closed circuit echo chamber of CNN, Politico, the Washington Post, etc. For the post-Buckley National Review this is good enough to pass for “different sources”.
Well, neither of them actually assert that there is any process that enables it. Quite the opposite in the case of this writer, in fact.
Anything else is "just winging it" and can't just be handwaved.
It is not a constitutional crisis, as the tenets of the constitution were followed for the electoral college votes. All that can change is states election security in the future.
What would be the mechanism or removing those unduly elected? It would have to start with a lawsuit in the Federal District Court. I know of no precedent for this, so such a suit would go thru the normal process, ending in the Supreme Court, which could take years.
The suit may have to start in state courts, as these are basically 50 individual elections. If that were the case, the process will take even longer - well past 2024.
Which is not to say the removal process shouldn’t start, as it would provide plenty of evidence for election reform.
NRO sticking up for shoddy NYT “reporting” is a new low, even for them.
“The electors certified a fraud.”
No, the state legislatures and Congress certified the fraud. Electors just did their mainly symbolic job of casting a vote for the person they were picked to cast a vote for. It’s not the job of electors to verify, or audit, or certify the election that picks them.
They aren’t though. The electors are selected by the states. They don’t even have to be allocated to the winner of the popular vote. But after they are certified, that’s it.
The deadline for all audits, recounts, etc. was December 14. That passed, then the votes were ceremoniously counted on Jan 6.
Blame who you want, but every state has the responsibility to ensure the security of their elections, and verify the results prior to certifying the electors.
Death, 25th Amendment, resignation, or impeachment.
That is every possible path.
Why not just ask Trump himself then.? He’s an easy enough guy to get in contact with if they wanted verify the quote. Maybe he just said it off hand as a joke ? Though, if I had to guess, this is made up out of whole cloth .
I'd like to see someone challenge the concept of "failed to qualify" in the 20th amendment.
Amendment 20 Section 3:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Can an argument can be made about the nature of "failed to qualify."
The question becomes, must these failures of qualifications be discovered before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College, be discovered before the Congressional count, or be discovered before the oath of office to be valid for the 20th amendment? If so, it rewards cover-up by any means by the very same bad-faith actors who stole the election in the first place.
In other words, what is the statute of limitations on "fail to qualify?"
This would involve SCOTUS to interpret that "fail to qualify" is permanent, and doesn't expire at the oath of office even though the election was provably stolen by the new President who would otherwise have failed to qualify if the theft had been uncovered sooner.
If both Biden and Harris are found to not have qualified under the 20th amendment, the amendment contains a remedy. Congress can then "declar[e] who shall then act as President." Furthermore, Congress can determine "the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected," perhaps meaning a special election, a vote in the House (either by delegation or member), or even reinstalling the prior President.
However, SCOTUS was a part of the delay in unraveling the cover-up, so they are also not good-faith actors here.
If a state can show incontrovertible proof of a tainted election where the wrong candidate was certified due to the actions of bad-faith officials who then interfered in efforts to uncover the theft until after the deadlines, is there a statute of limitations on that?
If enough states can meet that burden of proof and revoke their certifications such that the sitting President no longer qualifies, is that actionable or has the statute of limitations (about six weeks) passed and the crooks are rewarded for their crime and cover-up?
-PJ
“The Constitution is our founding document and the supreme law of the land - carved in stone unless duly amended.”
Certainly, but when we are the only ones following the Consitution, while the enemy tramples it with abandon, and without consequence, well, then it’s only the “law of the land” in theory, rather than in practice.
“will not reverse the election as the electors have already spoken”
Agreed
There is no Constitutional mechanism to restore a stolen election. There is, however, a precedent as outlined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
I can attest, too, that Trump is trying hard to recruit journalists, politicians, and other influential figures to promulgate this belief — not as a fundraising tool or an infantile bit of trolling or a trial balloon, but as a fact.
Chas C W Cooke/NR just can’t help themselves with their NeverTrumpisms.
......” We are in new territory”.....
And for that reason this matter continues to roll along...
History has been changed in the past because of great men who fought for justice in corrupt governing systems. I believe we are there... but with surely an uncertainty about the outcome.
Speaking to an array of different sources.
Ace reporter CHARLES C. W. COOKE
I think this is neverTrumpers trying to make Trump look like a Q nutcase because they’re afraid that he has more power over the voter republican base than they do and they’d be right.
These are extraordinary crazy times and that is the enemies intent...my comment was reserved for them. If they break the Constitution, we are no longer a Republic.
That one will never happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.