Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[ixtap]

I had to read this multiple times, because my brain read it as "Trump", the proper noun, rather than "trump", the verb.

I can't tell you how much it annoys me not to be able to use the word "trump" as a verb without making it political.

Yep.  I (obviously) still have not found a good replacement for that term.  We really need one!

Think of the problems bridge players have!   ;-)

And euchre players!

No one ever thinks of the euchre players...

[GuitarStv]

Hey, here's real news about actual attempted election fraud in Georgia by Republicans:

Florida attorney under investigation for registering to vote in Georgia, encouraging others to do the same

That's not a valid case though.  Fraud only exists if Democrats do it.  When Republicans subvert democracy, I believe it's called 'freedom'.

[sui generis]

I think you would have to argue that there was no power to grant the pardon in the first place, so a court would then be deciding that the pardon never existed in the first place, rather than that it existed and then was voided by the court order.

One line I haven't seen argued yet is that the President can only exercise his powers after taking the oath of office (see for instance Obama retaking the oath, just to be sure, after Roberts effed it up at the inauguration), and therefore that the President's exercise of his power is subject to his complying with that oath as he exercises it.  Any crimes committed by the President during his Presidency, or by any member of his administration while working for the administration, would contravene the Constitution, and so any pardon for those crimes would also contravene the Constitution.  Because the President's powers are to be exercised for the purpose of upholding the Constitution, as set out in the oath of office, any such pardon would be outside those powers and invalid from the start.

An interesting thought exercise and would be great to see litigation attempt to resolve it if anyone had a few million sitting around and a lot of time to spend on it (plus could rope in someone with standing).  But, I don't think that is consistent with current understanding.  For instance, Ford's pardon of Nixon was quite broad, for all offesnes committed against the US.  Of course, that would include anything he might have done that was unconstitutional.  I wasn't alive at the time, much less had any legal training to hear how it was discussed, but I don't think people nowadays question that Ford's order was actually just limited to "statutory" offenses against the US or something like that.

So let's say that a sitting President, in his arrogance, accepted a direct bribe for a pardon. There's a wire to a personal offshore account, there are emails, and there are multiple witnesses, some of whom turned state's evidence.

Could the President pardon the briber and anyone else implicated in the crime? Is there any federal court that is able to charge the President? Or is he effectively immune due to a beguiled and beholden Senate?

He'd have to flee state charges, obviously, but Alabama or South Dakota might not extradite.

I honestly don't know (but assume many highly-paid lawyers are right now writing up briefs and memos on this exact subject) whether there are legal theories that would limit a president's ability to use a pardon if it was part of a larger, illegal scheme.  I'm resisting googling this, and there might be some good theories and ideas out there already.  But generally, if the president has a consitutional right to do something, a statute (i.e. making bribery illegal) cannot supersede that right, unless the constitution also grants power or leaves space (in some fashion) to explicate or limit or refine that right.  So just the mere fact that he did something illegal doesn't mean that a particularl consitutional power was exercised illegally or incorrectly.

I think you would have to argue that there was no power to grant the pardon in the first place, so a court would then be deciding that the pardon never existed in the first place, rather than that it existed and then was voided by the court order.

One line I haven't seen argued yet is that the President can only exercise his powers after taking the oath of office (see for instance Obama retaking the oath, just to be sure, after Roberts effed it up at the inauguration), and therefore that the President's exercise of his power is subject to his complying with that oath as he exercises it.  Any crimes committed by the President during his Presidency, or by any member of his administration while working for the administration, would contravene the Constitution, and so any pardon for those crimes would also contravene the Constitution.  Because the President's powers are to be exercised for the purpose of upholding the Constitution, as set out in the oath of office, any such pardon would be outside those powers and invalid from the start.

An interesting thought exercise and would be great to see litigation attempt to resolve it if anyone had a few million sitting around and a lot of time to spend on it (plus could rope in someone with standing).  But, I don't think that is consistent with current understanding.  For instance, Ford's pardon of Nixon was quite broad, for all offesnes committed against the US.  Of course, that would include anything he might have done that was unconstitutional.  I wasn't alive at the time, much less had any legal training to hear how it was discussed, but I don't think people nowadays question that Ford's order was actually just limited to "statutory" offenses against the US or something like that.

Does the fact that something hasn't been argued before rule it out of being argued now?  I don't think there was any litigation over the Nixon pardon so it doesn't form a legal precedent.

That's right.  Just because a topic hasn't been litigated doesn't mean we know the answer.  The fact that no one has litigated on something and, let's say, it's been ongoing for centuries and someone finally brings suit could be persuasive to the court (particularly in the absence of other conclusive information from the law, the legislative history, etc), but not necessarily authoritative.  The text of the law being sued on would trump whatever the practice has been, if it was an obvious conflict.

Would an argument based on the power of pardon being limited by the oath of office also apply to the Vice-President in that administration?  So Pence couldn't become President and pardon Trump?  That might become important.

I might be missing something about your hypothetical here? But if Pence became President, he would take the oath of office immediately.  (Perhaps you've seen the pics of Johnson being sworn in with Jackie Kennedy, in her bloodstained dress, standing next to him, after JFK was assassinated).  I don't think there'd be time, much less would Pence attempt, to pardon Trump before he had taken the oath.

For anyone interested in these questions ( @bacchi and @former player perhaps), the Amicus podcast with Dahlia Lithwick is on point today.  I found it interesting and helpful: https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2020/12/donald-trump-pardon-policy

[talltexan]

I had to read this multiple times, because my brain read it as "Trump", the proper noun, rather than "trump", the verb.

I can't tell you how much it annoys me not to be able to use the word "trump" as a verb without making it political.

Yep.  I (obviously) still have not found a good replacement for that term.  We really need one!

Think of the problems bridge players have!   ;-)

This came up for us in a family game the other day. My Mother-in-law is convinced that our country will become socialist within the next few years, and I had a nice, balanced opening hand. While I normally would have opened 1-no-trump, I didn't want to twist the knife, so I would up having to play the hand in Hearts and being set.

[sui generis]

Wow. The state of Texas is now suing the states of PA, MI, WI and GA to demand their state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors, and has filed directly with SCOTUS. Crazy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

[nereo]

Wow. The state of Texas is now doing the states of PA, MI, WI and GA to demand their state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors, and has filed directly with SCOTUS. Crazy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

Well apparently the Texas Solicitor General isn't even listed on the filings.  Which says a lot about how bat s___ crazy this is.

[ender]

Wow. The state of Texas is now doing the states of PA, MI, WI and GA to demand their state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors, and has filed directly with SCOTUS. Crazy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

From the filing, lol:

The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000.

[bacchi]

Wow. The state of Texas is now doing the states of PA, MI, WI and GA to demand their state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors, and has filed directly with SCOTUS. Crazy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

From the filing, lol:

The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000.

Calculated using the methodology of "hitting 0 until the number looks really, really, big."

[sherr]

From the filing, lol:

The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000.

Most people voting by mail were voting Biden because they took the pandemic seriously (up to a 3:1 margin in some polls), most people voting in-person were voting Trump because he told them to. These states don't start counting absentee ballots until election day (some don't even start processing - ie signature matching and whatever - absentee ballots until election day), which means the initial results will be mostly the in-person vote, while the later updates will be mostly the mail-in vote. These two facts combined result in a "red mirage", where things look very Trumpy at the beginning but then shift towards Biden as more and more of the vote is counted.

This was all known before the election. There were many articles written telling people to expect exactly this scenario. Seriously, how can people be this stupid?

[bacchi]

This was all known before the election. There were many articles written telling people to expect exactly this scenario. Seriously, how can people be this stupid?

The alt-right boards are gleeful about this suit. For example, "This is a really well-done lawsuit" and "So much winning!"

They really are that stupid. Or bitter trolls.

[OtherJen]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

[ixtap]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

Still have at least one more SCOTUS case from Texas, suing all the swing states that Biden one for unlawful election processes.

[Kris]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

Still have at least one more SCOTUS case from Texas, suing all the swing states that Biden one for unlawful election processes.

Yeah, but that one is dead in the water. The dude who filed it is indicted on felony securities fraud and is also under investigation by the FBI. He’s just doing it to angle for a Trump pardon.

[sui generis]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

Their chances are getting increasingly remote, but unfortunately not the end of the antics. Even without the TX case I mentioned above, Republicans are now making notes about antics to take place in Jan 6(?) when the results are supposed to be received/counted by congress. It is bound to make even these two attempts at SCOTUS look like statesmanlike actions, but the point is that aren't done yet!

The worst thing is what they'll be doing after Jan 20... building up a narrative of grievance to foment further division. Very Germany 1919.

[rab-bit]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

Mike Kelly is my congressman ☹️

[Travis]

Really been enjoying the "every vote must be counted! except for the ones we don't like! and our complaints are based on statistical analysis, rather than vote counting!"

Wow. The state of Texas is now doing the states of PA, MI, WI and GA to demand their state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors, and has filed directly with SCOTUS. Crazy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

From the filing, lol:

The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000.

Calculated using the methodology of "hitting 0 until the number looks really, really, big."

So according to this nutjob, Biden had a 1000% better chance of winning the lottery than winning the election?

[scottish]

Really been enjoying the "every vote must be counted! except for the ones we don't like! and our complaints are based on made up numbers statistical analysis, rather than vote counting!"

Fixed that for you!

[Travis]

Really been enjoying the "every vote must be counted! except for the ones we don't like! and our complaints are based on made up numbers statistical analysis, rather than vote counting!"

Fixed that for you!

Well I figured that was obvious. The evidence actually presented at court so far has consisted almost entirely of "because I said so!"

[Sandi_k]

Does this mean an end to the worlds shittiest Whack-a-Mole game because the Supreme Court was the goal?

Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid To Reverse Pennsylvania Election Results (NPR)

The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling that the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive popular vote and Electoral College defeat.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," read the court's order, which did not comment further or suggest any dissent among the court's nine justices.

Still have at least one more SCOTUS case from Texas, suing all the swing states that Biden one for unlawful election processes.

Yeah, but that one is dead in the water. The dude who filed it is indicted on felony securities fraud and is also under investigation by the FBI. He’s just doing it to angle for a Trump pardon.

It's also dead on arrival because Texas doesn't have the standing to grieve how other states handle their elections and absentee ballots.

Good grief.

[dignam]

Seriously, Texas?  What a world we live in.  Our AG had a nice response:

https://twitter.com/WisDOJ/status/1336350804308013056

[FIPurpose]

Apparently the guy in Texas who pushed for the lawsuit is under FBI investigation. I heard some people guessing that it was a stunt in order to get a pardon.

[GuitarStv]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

[ixtap]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

[sherr]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

He can pardon any federal crime, yes. Murder is also illegal in whatever state it happens in, and the state would definitely also prosecute, and he'd be powerless to stop that.

[sherr]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

I think it's not clear because no one has ever been corrupt enough to try.

[GuitarStv]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

[sherr]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

I still cling to the vague hope that even the Senate Republicans are "not evil" enough that they would remove him from office if he were impeached for having the president-elect assassinated. Regardless though all that would do is remove him from office, and he would still have plenty of time while the impeachment was in the works to try to pardon himself.

[nereo]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

[GuitarStv]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

But he could just get people to execute anyone involved in those cases . . . and then pardon/pay them off, right?

[frugalnacho]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

I'm imagining this as an actual conversation between Trump and his lawyers. 

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can I do anything with it?  Like if I ask someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . I can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

*Nervously glancing around at the other lawyers*

[former player]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

But he could just get people to execute anyone involved in those cases . . . and then pardon/pay them off, right?

Trump's pardon power doesn't extend to civil cases.  The civil penalty for ordering the murder of a President Elect would bankrupt Trump again and permanently.

[GuitarStv]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

But he could just get people to execute anyone involved in those cases . . . and then pardon/pay them off, right?

Trump's pardon power doesn't extend to civil cases.  The civil penalty for ordering the murder of a President Elect would bankrupt Trump again and permanently.

So murder is a state, not a federal crime then?

[FIPurpose]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

But he could just get people to execute anyone involved in those cases . . . and then pardon/pay them off, right?

Trump's pardon power doesn't extend to civil cases.  The civil penalty for ordering the murder of a President Elect would bankrupt Trump again and permanently.

So murder is a state, not a federal crime then?

Both, and there are a lot of laws covered by both. So people can be tried at both the federal and state level for the same crime.

[nereo]

So like . . . this pardon power.  Can Trump do anything with it?  Like if he asks someone to shoot Joe Biden . . . he can then just turn around and pardon that person, right?

Yes, but inciting violence is a crime on Trump's part and I don't think he can pardon himself.

Yeah, but Trump is above the law as long as Republicans control the senate right?

Federal law, maybe. Not state law. Which is why half a dozen lawsuits with trump as the plaintiff are going forward despite all his efforts to quash them. Discovery during several of those cases could make future lawsuits more likely.

But he could just get people to execute anyone involved in those cases . . . and then pardon/pay them off, right?

All signs point to no. As others pointed out, presidential pardons only matter for federal criminal crimes. They are irrelevant for civil and state law. Further, despite his claims of absolute immunity, it’s notable how many executive office appointed people directly answerable to Trump have refused to carry out his worst orders, and how many Republican appointed judges have permitted lawsuits to proceed, struck down many of his actions and otherwise limited his conduct.

About all that’s been shown is that the gop senate refused to remove him from office. That’s an entirely different metric.

[Just Joe]

I kind of feel like Trump and some of his loudest big mouth supporters have been actively trying to incite a riot and/or murder for months now.

[bacchi]

I kind of feel like Trump and some of his loudest big mouth supporters have been actively trying to incite a riot and/or murder for months now.

They're always on the verge but just enough to step back and say, "Hey, it was only a joke!"

Look at the Krebs lawsuit. It was only "hyperbole in a political discourse" when diGenova said Krebs should be "shot at dawn."

[scottish]

Yeah, well now diGenova can justify that in court.   Another small step in the right direction.

I'm pretty sure Krebs took on that job specifically to help defuse Trump's ongoing antics.   He fully expected to get booted for doing a good job.

[Travis]

I kind of feel like Trump and some of his loudest big mouth supporters have been actively trying to incite a riot and/or murder for months now.

They're always on the verge but just enough to step back and say, "Hey, it was only a joke!"

It's not attempted kidnapping, murder, or lynching, but a justified citizens arrest.

https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-sheriff-who-supported-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-alleges-voter-fraud-new-lawsuit-1552950

https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-secretary-states-home-surrounded-election-protesters-shouting-obscenities-1552875

[talltexan]

Even if Trump can pull off this sort of assassination consequence-free, Nancy Pelosi would still become President on Jan. 21.

Conservatives, is that sounding like an improvement over Joe Biden to you? I thought so.

[nereo]

Even if Trump can pull off this sort of assassination consequence-free, Nancy Pelosi would still become President on Jan. 21.

Conservatives, is that sounding like an improvement over Joe Biden to you? I thought so.

In the transition period it's not that simple.  If Biden dies before the electoral college meets (on Dec 14th) the electors could cast their votes for another candidate.  Once those votes have been cast, the twentieth amendment stipulates that congress has 'no discretion' [and] 'would declare that the deceased candidate had received a majority of the votes.'"  While a bit ambiguous, it seems to indicate that Harris would then be the successor as the VP of the now deceased President-elect.  The 25th amendment then addressed a vacancy in the VP ("Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress").  So Harris would nominate a VP, who may or may not be confirmed by the House and Senate.  Pelosi only becomes president under the above scenarios if BOTH Biden and Harris perish, or if Biden dies before the electors meet (thereby allowing for the EC to vote - implausably - for Pelosi... who never ran as a candidate).

Regardless, any transition before inaugeration day would almost certainly be challeneged and wind up before SCOTUS.

At least... that is what I have read and understand.

[OtherJen]

I kind of feel like Trump and some of his loudest big mouth supporters have been actively trying to incite a riot and/or murder for months now.

They're always on the verge but just enough to step back and say, "Hey, it was only a joke!"

It's not attempted kidnapping, murder, or lynching, but a justified citizens arrest.

https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-sheriff-who-supported-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-alleges-voter-fraud-new-lawsuit-1552950

https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-secretary-states-home-surrounded-election-protesters-shouting-obscenities-1552875

I'm afraid our AG will be next, after this: Michigan AG says Texas 'has no standing to disenfranchise' millions of voters (The Hill)

Nessel took aim at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and the other state attorneys general who have signed onto the lawsuit, saying that as attorney general, "I took an oath to uphold the Michigan constitution and the United States constitution to the best of my ability, so help me God."

"I don't know what they did in these other states, I don't know what their oath was to, I don't know if they swore to uphold the tiny, fragile ego of a man who cares about nothing but himself, but they sold their souls and I hope it was worth it to them," she added.

[Travis]

Is she the same one who told Paxton "stop bothering my people and go back to disenfranchising your own like you've been doing?"

[OtherJen]

Is she the same one who told Paxton "stop bothering my people and go back to disenfranchising your own like you've been doing?"

Probably. It sounds like her.

[BicycleB]

^Wow!

I think your AG is right on point, rhetorically not just in terms of law and justice. Taking such a clear and dramatic stance, using the same level of polarizing insult as Trump himself but accurately identifying the correct position to take, seems like a legitimate path toward giving people of conscience something to understand and remember under pressure. Wouldn't be surprised if her quote above goes in some history books.

[Just Joe]

Hard to believe this is the "United States of America" anymore...

Sure, our country has always been messy in reality even if so much of what we are taught is used to sanitize our past.

I agree with you BicycleB.

 

[OtherJen]

^Wow!

I think your AG is right on point, rhetorically not just in terms of law and justice. Taking such a clear and dramatic stance, using the same level of polarizing insult as Trump himself but accurately identifying the correct position to take, seems like a legitimate path toward giving people of conscience something to understand and remember under pressure. Wouldn't be surprised if her quote above goes in some history books.

I hope it does. She's amazing and a real fighter for our state.

We're very lucky in Michigan to have elected a trifecta of strong state leaders back in 2018. That election is having so many positive repercussions this year (it was also when we voted to amend our state constitution to allow any-reason absentee voting, among other things).

[sui generis]

Welp, SCOTUS denis TX AG Paxton (joined by other shameless R AGs and Reps) attempt to get them to overturn other states' elections.  Effectively unanimous.

Another one bites the dust.  Probably still not the end of this...

[Travis]

Filed under 'how the fuck is she still a licensed attorney?'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powell-spider-spyder-witness/2020/12/11/0cd567e6-3b2a-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

[OtherJen]

And the World's Shittiest Whack-a-Mole game continues. From my state's capitol:

Michigan GOP Rep. Gary Eisen removed from committee after comments on Electoral College disruption (WDIV Detroit)

LANSING, Mich. – Michigan Rep. Gary Eisen has been removed from his committee assignments for the rest of the term after he made comments during a radio interview on Monday.

During the interview Eisen mentioned an event and when pressed further on it he said, “it’ll be all over the news later on.”

“There’s going to be violence. There’s going to be protests. And they asked me if I was going to assist today ... And how could I not?” Eisen said.

Eisen was asked, “Can you assure me that this is going to be a safe day in Lansing, nobody is going to get hurt?”

Eisen said, “No.” And then said, “I don’t know because what we’re doing today is uncharted. It hasn’t been done. And it’s not me doing it. It’s the Michigan Republican Party. I’m just here to witness. ... Showing that I support what they’re doing.”

He needs to be charged with open sedition. Actually, lots of people need to be charged with sedition. I hope no one is injured or killed today.

[talltexan]

Hard to believe this is the "United States of America" anymore...

Sure, our country has always been messy in reality even if so much of what we are taught is used to sanitize our past.

I agree with you BicycleB.

I know what I was taught in school.

I also can see what those teachers really think because I'm facebook friends with them today.