At any other time, so many other stories would be the five-bell headline -- from the Breonna Taylor decision to charge no one in her killing, despite having settled a civil suit with the family for $12 million...to reports of former Secretary of Agriculture Rick Perry in an apparently-corrupt deal with a Ukrainian oil company to sit on its board... to the story of how the current nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security (after having lead it illegally for months as "acting head") oversaw a $6 million contract to a firm where his wife worked. And more.
But they pale to Trump's comments not guaranteeing a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, and suggesting ballots be ignored -- on the heels of a hair-raising article in The Atlantic that described Trump plans to subvert the Electoral College by having Republican legislatures in battleground states take back the power to appoint Electors. As much as I was repulsed by Trump’s response at the press conference, I loved that he was asked – and that the reporter followed up. So, perhaps we'll start to get journalists challenging him more, not in "debate," but to get his words on serious, uncommon matters like this on the record. And in that regard, I also think that answers like he gave will repulse most voters, including some Republicans who aren’t cultists, but most-importantly undecided Independents. I say that because I don’t think almost any American voter wants a contested election or wants a president to not commit to peaceful transfer of power. Cultists may be okay with their beloved Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, but as a principle of Constitutional American life, I don’t think a president not committing to a peaceful transfer of power is something that comes across well to Americans. And it will hurt him even more in the polls, for which yesterday there were two new ones that show him 10 points behind. And ultimately, that will be the biggest protection against Trump's attempt to manipulate and challenge the results – having, hopefully as big a landslide victory as possible. It may not be that, it may not even be a victory at all. But as all major polls show in the popular vote and by Electoral vote, it appears headed in that direction. There was a major election analyst this week (I forget who, sorry), who said there is a much greater chance of Biden getting 350 Electoral votes (40%) than of Trump just winning (25%). And I think every public action like this on Wednesday that Trump makes hurts him with those in the middle all the more. And it's not that it changes people's minds on a wide, massive scale, but just stripping away 1% is significant. And no, I don’t know. But that’s what I think. I also think there's a big hurdle in Trump trying to challenge the validity vote-by-mail and taking it to court. And that hurdle is that voting-by-mail is not only legal in every state, and in operation in every state, but has been for many generations, so the precedent is very long established. All that aside, there are two other issues related to this, in particular to the article in The Atlantic, that I believe offset some of the hair-on-fire horror that the author reported on Trump and GOP plans. The first is when I heard Barton Gellman, the author of The Atlantic article, state as legal fact something that supports the foundation of his article, which was a plan by Team Trump to challenge Electors being decided by popular vote, so that the Republican state legislatures can pick their own Electors, which was long-time past how things were handled before tradition changed all that. What Mr. Gellman said was that Bush v. Gore set down the principle that states can take back the power of votes to determine Electoral votes. The thing is...my understanding of Bush v. Gore is that it very clearly said that its ruling should not be taken as precedent, and that it solely pertained to this one specific election in Florida in 2000. Now, maybe there’s another argument that supports states taking back the power. Or maybe the Supreme Court could rule that way on its own. But using Bush v. Gore as the precedent to substantiate your article is (as far as I can tell) without any foundation. At the very least, I’m surprised that I didn't hear any analysts bring this up. And there was one other thing The Atlantic article seems to ignore as a critical hurdle to its Worst Case Scenario -- a major thing. Even if everything ends up happening exactly like article says Team Trump is in the early stages of tenatively maneuvering, the Electoral College doesn’t work like that. It doesn't just meet, tabulate in their votes, and it’s all done. Those votes actually have to be certified by the House and the Senate! And…it’s not the current House and the Senate, but the Congress which meets in January, after the results of this election have taken place. The new Congress. Which means very possibly a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. I think that if Trump and Republicans actually pull off this outlandish plan, it is near impossible for me to imagine a Democratic House, let alone also a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate (if they take control) certifying such an unprecedented power-grab end run around the popular vote. Yes, if it all transpired this way and came down to that, it would certainly be a political mess. But the point is that it's not the simplistic matter of just manipulating state legislatures and counting the Electoral votes. There is another layer of protection built in. But for all of this -- for all the hideous ghastliness of Trump's statement and The Atlantic reporting of GOP plans, the one statement that stands out just as loudly, if not more so now, that all the times before. And the mantra can be repeated by everyone here in their sleep -- This is not about Trump, we know who he is. This is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit in it all. This only happens if the Republican members of Congress support and allow it. And they do support it. And do allow it. And at its core it is pure, book-definition fascism. Attempting to undermine trust in government institutions, and undermining what the truth and reality are, so that those in power are free to define it. This isn't about Trump. It's about today's Republican Party which has gone full fascist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|