198
‘What’s he confessing to?’ Trump’s Mike Johnson ‘secret’ draws Electoral College concerns
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
198 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3323 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A few things of note here. First, there is no guarantee that Mike Johnson will even be in a position to do anything about it. It's the new Congress that counts these votes, so if Democrats can pick up a few seats then Jeffries will be Speaker.
Second, recall that they made some changes to the EC voting process:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022
They increased the threshold of members who need to object to 1/5 of each body (so, 87 House members + 20 Senators). Is it possible they already have these people in the bag? Possibly, especially since the yo-yos who objected last time haven't really had any consequences to that.
They also clarified exactly two grounds for challenges:
But I suppose there is nothing to really stop them from claiming the electors were not lawfully certified, even if they were. They are still complaining that Jack Smith wasn't lawfully installed, and even got a judge to buy into it.
That judge being Aileen Cannon, who Trump nominated, has been obviously slow walking his case, is clearly doing everything she can to protect him, and even she wasn't stupid enough to try this argument until Clarence Thomas dropped a big fat hint in a SCOTUS decision to give her cover.
Cannon is also on the leaked shortlist to be Donald's AG if he disgraces the office again (there are thoughts it might have been an intentional leak to somehow shore up Cannon's 'Special Prosecutors are just a figment of our imagination, we're hallucinating the hundreds of years of precedent' reasoning to Judge Chutkan, like 'See, this potential future AG says it, that's gotta count for something') , "The defendant offered me a very prestigious job" seems like a pretty major conflict of interest that should definitely have her removed from the case.
I'm sure that will come up in the confirmation hearing, which is why the Senate is so important. And why the Democrats keep focusing on Texas even though Kamala has a very slim chance there. Cruz is vulnerable, and if Allred takes that seat and keeps the Senate in Democratic hands it will go a long way to limit the damage Trump can do by limiting his choices.
Idk about Allred actually getting Cruz. He's in Texas, he's black and polling I've seen has been largely unchanged with Allred down 3-5%. As seems usual we're counting on women and minorities to do enough to stop the worst but I really wonder if we can get the best.
Voters seem to have goldfish memory every election about how conservatives keep fucking us everytime they're in power.
Maybe not about having congresspeople objecting. They're going to try and engineer an electoral college 269-269 tie.
It's a fucking longshot, and if they still think it's a plan worth putting effort behind, that speaks to what they think their chances of winning above board are.
I mean, they can't really engineer a tie. If the vote ends up that way that's one thing, but if they have found a way to manipulate votes why not go for the win?
They could lean on certain states to change their certification, but that didn't work in 2020, there's no reason to assume it would work now. These battleground states have had a lot of attention put on them, their Governors and Secretaries of State aren't going to roll over like that.
No, I think the game they are playing is to purposefully sabotage the certification process at the local level so key Harris wins can be neutralized. If Harris wins GA or AZ, I am fully expecting the local election boards to do everything they can to stall the certification. They've basically been telegraphing that, so much so that there have been recent court rulings telling those local boards they can't do that.
That's fair, but I was catching this from the article:
Yeah, I saw that in the article, and immediately dismissed it for all the reasons I already stated.
Plus, many of the more likely tie scenarios involve Nebraska, one of only two states which appoint EC votes based on congressional district. If Harris wins the lone vote for the district with Omaha in it, it makes it far less likely to end in a tie. Maybe That's what Trump is on about, then: more pressure on Nebraska to change its EC allocation process.