Even W's DOJ Thinks This Is Nuts

Leaked emails reveal Trump-appointed DOJ official pushed department to intervene in Georgia electionhttps://t.co/NF354hoxp8

— Raw Story (@RawStory) August 3, 2021

I saw this:

"The Department of Justice is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States," Clark's draft letter said. "The Department will update you as we are able on investigatory progress, but at this time we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia."

Clark's request to send the letter was ultimately denied by then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue.

But it left out at least one explanation as to why Rosen and Donoghue refused to let the letter go out:

This letter is crazy on so many levels. But the argument that the *federal* Constitution gives state legislatures the “implied” power to call themselves into session—when their state constitution doesn’t—is just about the most ridiculous conception of “federalism” I’ve ever seen. https://t.co/dwRE6eKPd3

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 3, 2021

So, if the Governor didn't call a special session, the Georgia Legislature had double super secret probation powers to call one for itself in order to save the Presidential election for....the GOP candidate?  Yeah, sure; nobody's ever heard of that before, but what the heck, right?

Yep. Fills in some details from January:https://t.co/atFpRND2K2

— George "GET THE DAMN VAX" Scriban (@scriban2) August 3, 2021

It's always worse than you thought.

But think about this.  One of the arguments for "irregularities" in the election is that various states changed their voting procedures in response to Covid.  Harris County, to cite one, allowed for drive-through voting and established 24 hour drive through voting to allow people to vote with out exposing themselves to other people in lines.  That was challenged by the State but upheld by the State Supreme Court.  Going back to dicta from Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, the argument was that such changes without legislative action were improper and invalidated votes cast (which would include votes for Trump, but somehow that argument never gets noticed).  It's a bullshit argument misinterpreting a poorly reasoned statement by Rehnquist that even Clarence Thomas has never shown any interest in, and it's directly contradicted by state law in some states (which the Supremes cannot override on Constitutional grounds, because there aren't any).  This, on the other hand, is inventing legislative powers out of whole cloth and sheer fantasy, all to be able to alter the election outcome by fiat, a direct contradiction of the basic premise of democracy, elections, and the republic established by the Constitution.  But that's okay, because we like these results?

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

If Trump had fired Rosen and Donoghue to elevate Clark to the big chair, imagine the constitutional crises then.  I think at that point the Supremes would have to be invoked to settle the issue of whether or not we can allow that; and frankly, that's not an issue I want this court, or even the Warren Court, ruling on.  It's not the ruling that would worry me, but the way the Court would have to justify its ruling.  That would be a Constitutional crisis in itself.  Case in point:  Bush v. Gore.  Except this case would be so much worse than that one.

We don't need to punish these people.  "Accountability" ain't the magic bulllet some think it is.  We need to establish barriers that make sure a clown like Trump never gets closer to the White House than a guided tour, ever again.  "Accountability" will just teach the next Trump what to do.  We have to keep the next Trump from ever getting that far, and from being able to learn from Trump's mistakes if we can't keep the next one out of office.