this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024

198 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19159 readers

5938 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

198

‘What’s he confessing to?’ Trump’s Mike Johnson ‘secret’ draws Electoral College concerns (www.rawstory.com)

submitted 1 week ago by just_another_person@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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:

The electors of a state were not lawfully certified

An elector's vote was not "regularly given"

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.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] neoman4426@fedia.io 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's fair, but I was catching this from the article:

Professor of law Melissa Murray, a constitutional law expert and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, appears to agree.

"So, the plan is to have an Electoral College tie (which will likely require contesting swing state vote counts)," she writes. "A tie in the Electoral College will then require a vote in the House of Representatives, where the GOP, led by Speaker Johnson, has a (thin) majority...."

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Mike Johnson needs to be impeached and prosecuted for sedition.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's all one big seditious conspiracy, and it has been from the beginning. Until the Judicial system is willing to start punishing them for their crimes none of it fucking matters. If the framers were alive today there is ample evidence they would have hung the lot for treason.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I've been arguing for a RICO case on the entire Republican party since 1/6.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's not much of a fucking secret, Don, you fucking imbecile.

It's literally what you tried last time, and you literally can't shut the fuck up about it long enough for it to stay secret.

Trump couldn't be any fucking worse at keeping a secret.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

That's why Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea want him elected. Dumb bastard gave away the location of a multi-billion dollar spy satellite. so he could shake his tiny dick at the world in a weird flex.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

""A tie in the Electoral College will then require a vote in the House of Representatives, where the GOP, led by Speaker Johnson, has a (thin) majority....""

Except that the new Congress is sworn in on 1/2.

Right now the Republican majority is 220 to 212 with 3 vacancies.

*Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) resigned effective 04/25/2024. b

*Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) died 07/19/2024.

*Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) died 08/21/2024.

So, if the Democrats maintain those 2 vacancies, that makes it 220 to 214.

All of the seats are up for re-election.

If just 4 seats flip, that makes it 218 to 216 Democrats.

[–] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But if the House decides the election, it's not by Reps, each state makes a vote. And there are more R states than D states, so it will absolutely go to Trump.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the Speaker allows it to go forward...

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a Trump "secret". If his "secret" is to try the same plan as last time, then it's not a great plan. If it's a new plan, then good chance it was dreamed up in Trump's syphilis brain and he thinks it's as clever as the time he unleashed the kraken.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

He has the concept of a secret.

[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Imagine that actually goes through and one of the Republicans actually gets a conscience and falls on his sword and throws in for Kamala.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There are actually enough Republicans who won't go for this. It's a stupid plan. I'm sure there are already contingency plans to prevent this dumb shit from even getting there.