Bart Gellman's Atlantic article speculating on how Trump could “steal” the election should become a lesson in journalistic responsibility. By which I mean irresponsibility.
‘Who wants to break the news to him?’ Trump silent after GOP effort to block election certification in Michigan thwarted https://t.co/BXKm4kqzgw— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2020
The idea that local or state election boards could somehow override 2020 results has been a concern since before the Nov. 3 election, with experts warning that Trump’s repeated efforts to undermine confidence in the results was part of a long-game ploy to create enough doubt in the minds of voters that GOP electors would have room to refuse certifications—a thesis spelled out in journalist Bart Gellman’s piece in The Atlantic, published online in October, titled “How Trump Could Attempt a Coup.”What transpired in Michigan on Tuesday—though ultimately unsuccessful—is nearly exactly the kind of effort that Gellman and others had warned about.
How bad was he, by the way?
Judge Brann puts in writing what he said in court: Tomorrow's previously scheduled evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and now off.— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) November 18, 2020
He also rejects an effort by Trump's counsel to sanction the lawyers on the other side for what she claimed to be a harassing phone call. 🔽 https://t.co/J2gFIjNukB
Ben Matlock could have done better. Hell, Bozo the Clown could have done better. The Trumpistas may have loved it; but none of them sit on the federal bench; at least not for this case. and yet this is plainly happening because Burt Gellman took a chowderhead idea to some lawyers who should have known better (and probably didn't know Constitutional or electoral law all that well) and got scare quotes and idiotic ideas unworthy of a Twitter thread which he then sold to The Atlantic.
Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani flubbed the word "opacity," conceded he did not know the legal concept of "strict scrutiny," and confessed: "This is not a fraud case."— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) November 18, 2020
The Trump faithful loved his performance.
My latest, @lawcrimenews https://t.co/h87IIGopOz
Yeah, that only works when all other avenues have been exhausted. At best, they have a chance with the Pennsyvlania suit that state's Supreme Court just rejected unanimously. No, I know the vote was not unanimous; but the two dissenting votes thought the case was moot, not meritorious. It's a dead fish. Will the Supremes take it up before December 8 and rule on it, in keeping with the deadline of Bush v. Gore? And do what? Invalidate 6.8 million votes for the sake of two people? (No, I know it's not the same case as before the Federal District Court, but it might as well be.) Even Alito and Thomas won't do that, and even if they wanted to (and I believe they do, especially after Alito's public temper tantrum about being labeled a bigot because he dissented in Obergefell; boo fuckin' hoo, Mr. Justice. Is Trump's childish behavior contagious? Or are you just modeling it?), they'd never get Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to go along (ACB is a blank slate at this point).
Rudy Giuliani: Losing election lawsuits is part of our plan ‘to get it to the Supreme Court’ https://t.co/CDu7HPaxg8— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2020
It's the "appointed electors" that count, not the possible number of electors.
There is no way that this outrageous gambit would force vote to House. If those states don't appoint electors, Biden will still have majority of *appointed electors*. https://t.co/4Uff4G1Sxe— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 18, 2020