Do I repeat myself?

Insider says Kushner is now in charge of planning last ditch try at disqualifying Biden ballots on election night, urging Republican state legislatures to "send competing slates of electors," and then seeking a Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor. Barr is said to support this.

— Frank Schaeffer (@Frank_Schaeffer) August 4, 2020

Very well, then, I repeat myself.  What choice do I have?

First:  Bush didn't get to the Supreme Court by decrying the vote count in Florida.  He got there based on the facts of the vote count (that he shouldn't have gotten there is the fault of the Supremes, but that's another matter.)  Bush didn't get there by getting GOP states to disqualify ballots or by sending competing slates of electors.  He did it based on the AP announcement (which made everybody think if we didn't know by sunrise who the new POTUS was, the Republic was going to fall!  Again:  stupid media narrative which we're still hampered with), and the vote counting process in Florida.  And he ONLY got there because the national vote was so close Florida alone was the deciding factor.

So, first:  VOTE!  If the outcome isn't close, Trump loses whether he acknowledges it or not.  He can't contest the vote in 5 or 6 or 10 states; the courts will simply laugh him out the door as a sore loser.  EOD and QED.

Second:  if Kushner can get states (I doubt he could even get one, but arguendo) to send "competing slates of electors" (and considering Kushner's organizational abilities, I'd be surprised if he could organize take out for three people), a huge IF since we're talking about Jared Kushner (who the hell is listening to this guy by now?), that would create a repeat of the 1877 election:

While the Constitution requires the House and Senate to formally count the certificates of election in joint session, it is silent on what Congress should do to resolve disputes. In January 1877, Congress established the Federal Electoral Commission to investigate the disputed Electoral College ballots. The bipartisan commission, which included Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, voted along party lines to award all the contested ballots to Hayes—securing the presidency for him by a single electoral vote.

And this is where I repeat myself:

If there are disputes about the allocation of electors, there must be better grounds than "I object!" or "Millions of illegal aliens voted illegally!" or even "Mail in ballot fraud because people steal ballots!"  Barr may be Trump's new Roy Cohen, but even Barr can't make bricks without straw.  Without facts, all he can do is say "we don't like it!," and that's not a case any court will recognize.

Even if it goes to the House, the precedent of 1877 could decide the case, rather than the House voting as states.  That would be the most the GOP Senate could do, if they wanted to dispute the electoral college.  And why would they do that for Trump?  Especially if the election turns the GOP out of the majority in both houses.  The provision in Art. II, is applied when the electoral count is deadlocked; not when it is disputed.  Trump may scream "FRAUD" in all-caps Tweets, but it will be no more effective than "INVOKE P!" was. 

Schaeffer and Kushner (if Schaeffer's conspiracy theory, for that's what it is, has an iota of fact in it) presume the Court will short-circuit the Constitutional process because of Bush v. Gore.  But all the Court did (too much, slight as it was) in that case was stop the re-count and order a count based on facts at the time.  Which meant Bush won Florida's electoral college votes and when the Electoral college met and cast their votes, per the 12th Amendment and U.S.C. 3, Bush was elected President (and not by the AP).  Kushner going to the Supreme Court to stop the counting of ballots because he doesn't like the outcome, or trying to send multiple slates of electors to the meeting of the college, simply won't work.  The Court just ruled that a state can force an elector to honor his pledge.  Is it now supposed to tell the states it's fine to fuck with the constitutional provisions for electing a POTUS?  Considering the Chiafalo ruling was unanimous, I really don't see any wiggle room to expect that to happen.  All Kushner would do is throw the election into the Congress, which by all expectations will be a Democratically controlled one.  And frankly, to repeat myself yet again, if that happens, it's highly unlikely the Presidential contest is a close one at all.  So either way, Trump loses.

Oh, and the republic survives.

"You'll never know who the winner is, but the winner's going to be me," President Trump says during his latest criticisms on voting by mail.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) August 5, 2020

Somebody put that on his tombstone, huh?  Besides, there's a cure for that:

Go postal. pic.twitter.com/9bQkEjXH4B

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) August 5, 2020

Make it so.