This subject has already come up here a few times, so I found this to be a very interesting take on what could happen ... add it to the list that some of us have already come up with:

[www.newsweek.com]

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, should immediately ask the Judiciary, Commerce, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees to hold hearings on how steps can be taken to safeguard against this scenario, especially how to confront any invocation of emergency powers by the president.

… will this happen remains a crucial question. "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst."

I agree that the press needs to start discussing this scenario. If connivers hate anything it's to have their secret plans be made public.

Quote
bfd
Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, should immediately ask the Judiciary, Commerce, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees to hold hearings on how steps can be taken to safeguard against this scenario, especially how to confront any invocation of emergency powers by the president.

… will this happen remains a crucial question. "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst."

Yep, the big problem as I see it -- even if she were willing to do this -- is, what do you consider as appropriate vs. inappropriate invocation of emergency powers? We are, after all, in the middle of a pandemic -- which Trump could possibly, and according to some, legitimately use as an argument for the exercise of emergency powers. Any limitation of emergency powers could also be seen as an attempt to redefine the Presidency, which likely wouldn't withstand a judgment from the SC. The flip side of that is, perhaps such limitations are truly required ... if we've learned anything from Trump's Presidency, it's that we need to have checks in place in case the position is occupied by someone who is truly unfit or unbalanced or both. (25th Amendment should apply, but since no one has ever had to invoke it, it's purely a theoretical thing ... when what is needed are actual practical ways to deal with an existing situation.)

mrbigstuff's suggestion I think might be the better road to follow ... if the press starts (finally) asking questions and not letting go until they get answers. If enough people start asking questions, all the possible scenarios are discussed ... and attention is drawn to what should be done in each scenario ... then maybe we have a chance.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2020 12:40AM by PeterB.

A couple of these in sequence should fix things.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Bill Maher's been harping on the likelihood of a Dumbf refusal to leave office - especially if he's beaten - for the past year. He's asked every one of his politically connected guests the same question about plans to make sure this can't happen. None of them ever has a good answer. But the questioning has to go much further than it has so far. Seems like most of the press are afraid of getting kicked out of the WH press room to really dig into this with any amount of fervor.

If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

This is why the military abandoning The Orange Emperor during the riots was so important. It was a dress rehearsal.

He will need to lose by a yuuuge margin so that even if it goes to the House, he will lose the support of Republicans. Those Republicans will be looking out for their own electoral skins as will Republicans at all levels of government. Even they know four more years of Trump will be a disaster and that they will be wiped out once the election has been proven to be honest. It will be worse than the elections after Pres. Nixon resigned.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

I read that article the other day.

---

Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)

His surrogates Tucker Carlson and Donnie Jr will be there to pound the table keeping trumism alive. Tucker is being promoted as president 2024...but I think Donnie jr will challenge him on that.

Quote
Speedy
He will need to lose by a yuuuge margin so that even if it goes to the House, he will lose the support of Republicans. Those Republicans will be looking out for their own electoral skins as will Republicans at all levels of government. Even they know four more years of Trump will be a disaster and that they will be wiped out once the election has been proven to be honest. It will be worse than the elections after Pres. Nixon resigned.

Yep, I can see a "House election" (still extraordinarily unlikely) giving those Republicans fed up with taking his cr@p they've personally had to take over the last 4 years the opportunity to throw him under the bus.

Quote
samintx
His surrogates Tucker Carlson and Donnie Jr will be there to pound the table keeping trumism alive. Tucker is being promoted as president 2024...but I think Donnie jr will challenge him on that.

Yes I could see him having the ego to run again and continue to mess with the GOP. He'll leave as required but he'll do something weird like leave DC early, before the inauguration. I could see him no showing for Bidens inaugural.
He'll keep tweeting and harassing current leaders and candidates in both parties amd going on tv to say inflammatory stuff. Same as before 2016.

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

1) He may not lose the election (but not fairly, as described in the article and by others on the forum)

2) He may lose but argue the results, to the point where it ends up becoming something that has to be investigated and/or decided by the SC, as in Gore v. Bush.

Either way, he'll try to circumvent the swearing in, so that he'll maintain his position. Sad to say, but it's a possibility that has to be considered, and as some have noted above... it's something that nobody wants to seem to touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with NOT dealing with the possibility now is that if it were to come up, Trump could take advantage of the chaos and argue that for national security / emergency reasons, he needs to stay in office.

Here's yet another nightmare scenario: [washingtonmonthly.com]

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

These are empty threats.
What is MORE likely is that he declares a new civil war and the Red States attempt to secede from the union. And his comments on the 3rd indicate that is the intent.

He will have to decapitate the military between now and November if he wants to accomplish this goal. Senior leadership spoke up unequivocally after the Church photo-op anti-protester violence, making clear that it is NOT appropriate to use U.S. forces in these situations.

If you start seeing high-ranking generals retiring or being forced out en masse in the coming weeks, take heed. But I have a lot of faith in our military to resist a dictator.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
Lemon Drop
He'll keep tweeting and harassing current leaders and candidates in both parties amd going on tv to say inflammatory stuff. Same as before 2016.

Harder to do from a prison cell.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy
He will need to lose by a yuuuge margin so that even if it goes to the House, he will lose the support of Republicans. Those Republicans will be looking out for their own electoral skins as will Republicans at all levels of government. Even they know four more years of Trump will be a disaster and that they will be wiped out once the election has been proven to be honest. It will be worse than the elections after Pres. Nixon resigned.

Just like all of those Republicans behaved when they had their chance with impeachment. Oh wait...

Quote
rjmacs
He will have to decapitate the military between now and November if he wants to accomplish this goal. Senior leadership spoke up unequivocally after the Church photo-op anti-protester violence, making clear that it is NOT appropriate to use U.S. forces in these situations.

If you start seeing high-ranking generals retiring or being forced out en masse in the coming weeks, take heed. But I have a lot of faith in our military to resist a dictator.

No, the military will never get involved.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

.....the rumor is that he loses his election all the time, especially with Playboy Playmates [ he take a blue pill for it ].....

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

1) He may not lose the election (but not fairly, as described in the article and by others on the forum)

2) He may lose but argue the results, to the point where it ends up becoming something that has to be investigated and/or decided by the SC, as in Gore v. Bush.

Either way, he'll try to circumvent the swearing in, so that he'll maintain his position. Sad to say, but it's a possibility that has to be considered, and as some have noted above... it's something that nobody wants to seem to touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with NOT dealing with the possibility now is that if it were to come up, Trump could take advantage of the chaos and argue that for national security / emergency reasons, he needs to stay in office.

Here's yet another nightmare scenario: [washingtonmonthly.com]

The first premise is that the election is close. We need that to simply not be true.

Quote
sekker

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

1) He may not lose the election (but not fairly, as described in the article and by others on the forum)

2) He may lose but argue the results, to the point where it ends up becoming something that has to be investigated and/or decided by the SC, as in Gore v. Bush.

Either way, he'll try to circumvent the swearing in, so that he'll maintain his position. Sad to say, but it's a possibility that has to be considered, and as some have noted above... it's something that nobody wants to seem to touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with NOT dealing with the possibility now is that if it were to come up, Trump could take advantage of the chaos and argue that for national security / emergency reasons, he needs to stay in office.

Here's yet another nightmare scenario: [washingtonmonthly.com]

The first premise is that the election is close. We need that to simply not be true.

My reading of it all is that it would be better for him, certainly, if the election were close, but that this stunt can be pulled regardless of the results, as long as he can claim widespread fraud. And if he is going to fraudulently claim fraud, then there really is no safe percentage by which to win (or lose).

Quote
Speedy

Quote
rjmacs
He will have to decapitate the military between now and November if he wants to accomplish this goal. Senior leadership spoke up unequivocally after the Church photo-op anti-protester violence, making clear that it is NOT appropriate to use U.S. forces in these situations.

If you start seeing high-ranking generals retiring or being forced out en masse in the coming weeks, take heed. But I have a lot of faith in our military to resist a dictator.

No, the military will never get involved.

Well, no military - no control. President Biden assumes control as planned on inauguration day.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

He claimed fraud after winning the last election. His narcissism will only accept a ‘landslide’ win this time out, now that he’s supposedly spent almost four years being the best, most productive president ever, in his mind. He won’t accept anything else.

There will be both sweeping attempts to commit fraud on his behalf and ringing claims that fraud was committed against him.

He has spent virtually every second of his term in office showing us exactly what expect of any effort that he undertakes, a horrific, calculated shitshow.

The Wallace strategy in 1968 was to throw the vote to the HR mob. Didn't work, Nixxon squeaked through with a win - though his EC margin was much higher. HHH made up considerable ground from summer to the election, but it wasn't enough, and Wallace's third party upset the apple cart. Sadly, the rest is history… but would it have been much different with HHH?

Bobby Kennedy was the one who should've been president that year. While he was behind in the count when he was murdered, he could've made a difference.

Just look at the dreck in the White House now.

I would think his epic mismanagement of Covid-19 was intentional in order to create chaos and extend that chaos into the election... except I don't believe he is that competent, calculating and strategic or able to plan long term. I think it was simply incompetence, laziness and being out of touch with reality.

Quote
Bill in NC
Yep, I can see a "House election" (still extraordinarily unlikely) giving those Republicans fed up with taking his cr@p they've personally had to take over the last 4 years the opportunity to throw him under the bus.

They already had that opportunity in January and chose not to take it.

---

Quote
AllGold
I would think his epic mismanagement of Covid-19 was intentional in order to create chaos and extend that chaos into the election... except I don't believe he is that competent, calculating and strategic or able to plan long term. I think it was simply incompetence, laziness and being out of touch with reality.

Hanlon's razor = "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

If Trump loses, we’ll mostly see the version that slinked back home after Tulsa.

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

1) He may not lose the election (but not fairly, as described in the article and by others on the forum)

2) He may lose but argue the results, to the point where it ends up becoming something that has to be investigated and/or decided by the SC, as in Gore v. Bush.

Either way, he'll try to circumvent the swearing in, so that he'll maintain his position. Sad to say, but it's a possibility that has to be considered, and as some have noted above... it's something that nobody wants to seem to touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with NOT dealing with the possibility now is that if it were to come up, Trump could take advantage of the chaos and argue that for national security / emergency reasons, he needs to stay in office.

Here's yet another nightmare scenario: [washingtonmonthly.com]

The swearing in is for the incoming president. Trump doesn't need to swear out. As soon as the new person swears in, the president automatically becomes the FORMER president, with no powers.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
PeterB

Quote
Racer X
If he loses the election, come the day that the swearing in for the new president takes place, he has NO POWER. In addition, after the election is called, any orders he gives to prevent the orderly transfer of power are unlawful, and each and every member of the US Armed forces SWORE to ignore when they took their oath. If they FOLLOW an unlawful order, they, in turn, are breaking that oath, and are subject to charges.

Our forefathers thought much of this out. Also, the 2A is in place so that if we end up with a leader who wasn't elected, won't vacate office, or is ignoring the law, they can be ousted.

1) He may not lose the election (but not fairly, as described in the article and by others on the forum)

2) He may lose but argue the results, to the point where it ends up becoming something that has to be investigated and/or decided by the SC, as in Gore v. Bush.

Either way, he'll try to circumvent the swearing in, so that he'll maintain his position. Sad to say, but it's a possibility that has to be considered, and as some have noted above... it's something that nobody wants to seem to touch with a 10-foot pole. The problem with NOT dealing with the possibility now is that if it were to come up, Trump could take advantage of the chaos and argue that for national security / emergency reasons, he needs to stay in office.

Here's yet another nightmare scenario: [washingtonmonthly.com]

The swearing in is for the incoming president. Trump doesn't need to swear out. As soon as the new person swears in, the president automatically becomes the FORMER president, with no powers.

Right, but I'm not sure you're seeing my point ... suppose there is no swearing in, for whatever reason? That may be Trump's game plan -- either he wins by hook or by crook, or he loses but then contests the election to the point where there is no swearing in of anybody come January. True, his term ends in January, but if either there's no election or no clear winner, it's not clear what happens at that point: [thehill.com]

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB
Right, but I'm not sure you're seeing my point ... suppose there is no swearing in, for whatever reason? That may be Trump's game plan -- either he wins by hook or by crook, or he loses but then contests the election to the point where there is no swearing in of anybody come January. True, his term ends in January, but if either there's no election or no clear winner, it's not clear what happens at that point: [thehill.com]

Well, the one thing that's clear from that article is that no matter what, his term ends on Jan. 20 at noon. Period, full stop.

The uncertainty is as to how a temporary successor would be named, but it would very unlikely end up being the incumbent.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs
The uncertainty is as to how a temporary successor would be named, but it would very unlikely end up being the incumbent.

That's not the way it's been laid out...

The new Congress convenes January 3, 2021.

We don't just need a majority in the House at that point, but >50% states represented by a majority of democratic reps, which is a different thing.

Per the Newsweek article:
Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.

This vote would enable Trump to retain the presidency.

The momentum of the republican machine is behind Drumpf, nomatter if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody. This is a real problem.

---

Quote
Sarcany

Quote
rjmacs
The uncertainty is as to how a temporary successor would be named, but it would very unlikely end up being the incumbent.

That's not the way it's been laid out...

The new Congress convenes January 3, 2021.

We don't just need a majority in the House at that point, but >50% states represented by a majority of democratic reps, which is a different thing.

Per the Newsweek article:
Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.

This vote would enable Trump to retain the presidency.

The momentum of the republican machine is behind Drumpf, nomatter if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody. This is a real problem.

Yes, but you are describing a different scenario than that described in the Dershowitz/Hill piece, which posits that no legitimate election occurs.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Unfortunately, they're both possible (but hopefully very unlikely?) scenarios.

I could very easily see Trump losing, and then contesting the election in the courts well into January. Yes, his term ends then -- but if the election is contested, then there will be no swearing in, and then we're all up the proverbial creek. Remember that this is not likely to be any sort of normal election year ... and so there could be claims of voter suppression, voter fraud, mail-in ballot fraud, etc. (I'm not saying that any of these things would necessarily be true, just that they could be claimed.) And how exactly are votes going to be counted if we're still knee-deep in the pandemic? If electronically, we already know the potential for abuse there.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB
Unfortunately, they're both possible (but hopefully very unlikely?) scenarios.

I could very easily see Trump losing, and then contesting the election in the courts well into January. Yes, his term ends then -- but if the election is contested, then there will be no swearing in, and then we're all up the proverbial creek. Remember that this is not likely to be any sort of normal election year ... and so there could be claims of voter suppression, voter fraud, mail-in ballot fraud, etc. (I'm not saying that any of these things would necessarily be true, just that they could be claimed.) And how exactly are votes going to be counted if we're still knee-deep in the pandemic? If electronically, we already know the potential for abuse there.

There's a time limit on court challenges - the Electoral College has a date certain to meet (December 14), so on that date all certified electors will submit their ballots and certified results are transmitted to Congress. That's the only electoral college count that can matter.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future