Comment by ilamont | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilamont | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is a team of lawyers and politicians still trying to exploit every loophole and legal hack in the books, including the joint session to formally declare the winner:

There remains one last-ditch chance for electoral votes to be tossed. On January 6, the Senate and the House will convene to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner of the election. The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows "members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced," according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Procedure calls for Vice President Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers," who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner.

Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it's not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump's unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process.

According to a Washington Post survey, only 25 congressional Republicans have acknowledged President-elect Biden's victory. And 222 Republicans — in the House and Senate — will not say who won the election. Some may lodge their objections during the January 6 session. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has already said he would challenge Georgia and Pennsylvania's results, claiming flawed election systems, Politico first reported.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-...

Expanding on that "last-ditch chance" a little more, if an objection is raised during the joint session of Congress, there are then votes held in the House and Senate separately to decide whether to reject the electoral votes that are in question. Unless both chambers agree, the electoral votes remain valid and must be tallied.

At least that's my non-expert understanding from reading 3 U.S. Code § 15:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

With the escalation of conflict between the two parties, this feels like it will backfire at some point without revision.

Nothing short of plucking out the 3 horns of the government will prevent the regular logical constitutional succession of the country's executive. And putting his little horn in it's place...

Bear in mind that one of the options being considered is suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law, as suggested by retired Army General Michael Flynn, Scott Grady and leaders of the Tea Party.

And of course, thanks to the Second Amendment, civil war is always an option.

These are lunatic options but we appear to be living in lunatic times.

I can't help wondering if Biden shouldn't take these lunatics up on their offer. The US armed forces would probably follow his orders and be able to win Civil War 2.0 in very little time, with probably less than 1000 Americans losing their lives (so a lower body count than that attributable to Trump's mishandling of Covid).

A line needs to be drawn between people who support the peaceful transition of power, and those that support violence and armed intimidation of civilian election officials. If Biden doesn't settle that during his first term, he risks 2020 being the last free election that the country has.

> "The US armed forces would probably follow his orders and be able to win Civil War 2.0 in very little time, with probably less than 1000 Americans losing their lives ."

Are you willing to bet your future on that? Seems like a bad gamble to me.

"In a poll released this week, 52 percent of veterans said they would vote for President Trump, while 42 percent backed former Vice President Joe Biden. ... In 2016, Trump was favored by 60 percent of veterans who voted, according to exit polling."

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/oct/29/veterans-usually-vote-...

They do take an oath to uphold the constitution. 52% of veterans may have voted for Trump, but I doubt 52% of veterans are going to violate that oath.

In any event, it’s a terrible idea for all concerned.

You realize that a former US general (Flynn) is one of the people calling for a military-supported coup, right?

While I don't think most of the military support him or anything, I think you should consider scenarios where the chain of command fractures.

We've seen this in non-defence agencies (look at the backflips in the Justice department), and it's odd to think the military is somehow immune.

Civil war isn't a good thing. I don't know how old you are, but I remember Yugoslavia.

On January 21st if Trump remains the enemy of the legitimate 3 branches of government he will be dealt with harshly and surely you can count on that.

I have a serious question I want to ask all of these supposedly serious men and women:

What if you get what you want and this comes to pass?

A purely political coup, in America, with no findings of fact in any court of law. The dog that caught the car.

How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience no legitimate fraud has occurred, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?

Uh, well, I don't know that. Let me turn it around for you:

How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience that fraud changed the results, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?

You are presuming that your opponents knowingly commit evil. They feel exactly the same about you.

"In good conscience" is not just "I wish it to be true"; it also means you're satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted.

Sure. Many millions of Americans are satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted. They believe that an illegitimately elected person is about to seize power. They believe that you are gleefully dancing on the grave of democracy. They are wondering "How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass?" right now. They'd like a fix for this nation-destroying injustice.

So you are basically answering the original question with "yes." Half the citizens in America have lost confidence in the electoral process, which is tantamount to saying that the nation is already doomed.

A lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Republican voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics. That would be distasteful, but less alarming.

Likewise, a lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Democrat voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics, not that it is much better.

You didn't want this result?

You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security. Republicans aren't buying your excuses about the virus, or about black people being unable to get an ID card, or about anything else. You broke security on purpose. Any lack of evidence is because you purposely make it impossible to collect the evidence. (like a cop turning off his camera before doing evil) The result has been expected for months: a fraudulent Biden victory.

Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?

Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses.

You asked for the current situation when you dismantled what little security we had. Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. You broke security because you knew that fraud in your favor would happen if people didn't have to worry about getting caught.

> Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd.

Did you trust the result in 2016? Do you trust the House results, or the Senate results?

Overall, yes, but not for all seats. New Hampshire was untrustworthy in 2016, both for the presidential electors and for the senator. Some of the house seats, particularly in California, were untrustworthy. Florida was nearly stolen via Broward County, and then again for governor/senator in 2018. Numerous seats were stolen in 2018 and 2020, though I do believe that overall control of the House could be legitimate.

I think you're implying that fraud could reasonably go both directions. I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Election workers who are willing to commit crime are clearly going to favor democrats. That just isn't the law-and-order party.

In any case, if you had an issue with the 2016 results, you should have cooperated to secure the elections. You didn't, because you know that you benefit from insecure elections.

The situation with fraud evidence is like a cop found with a dozen dead people, all shot between the eyes, and his body camera turned off. He says they all attacked him, and he was just a really lucky man. There is no evidence otherwise, because he disabled the camera. Didn't do anything bad? Sure...

> I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans.

Well, that is what happens when one party seeks to remove your ability to vote, and the other defends your ability to vote.

> That just isn't the law-and-order party.

I’m amazed that you can imply that the Republicans are the law and order party, and not realize that you’ll get laughed at. Mad props.

Causation goes the other way. Nobody thought felons should vote until democrats realized that it would tip elections.

Oh, my mistake on the law and order. I should go Burn Loot Murder, rioting every night. Seriously? Portland is not a republican stronghold. The most crime-ridden places vote democrat.

I'll grant that Kamala Harris loved to prosecute crack users with a law that Joe Biden introduced, and that Donald Trump reduced the penalty. I'm not sure you want to take credit for the law that locked up lots of black people, but you may.

In almost every democratic country around the world felons can vote once they have served their sentence.

Law and order and some light treason: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/529926-texas-gop-ch...

But maybe you’ll think of a way to secede without a bit of the ol’ Burn Loot Murder, you’re a bright lad.

> You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security

It's difficult to take Republicans seriously when they didn't file a constitutional lawsuit against every state who implemented vote-by-mail in response to covid-19, just the four states that would need to be disqualified in order to make Trump the winner.

> Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?

Sure, no problem. Fund the FEC and make it their mandate to find every eligible citizen and issue them a free election ID card. If your answer continues to be 'make it a state ID, and by the way we will make it so DMV is only open one day every two weeks for a couple hours in this black neighborhood over here' then it just looks like continued attempts at voter suppression.

You can't try to pretend you are acting in good faith when it is so obvious you aren't.

Nobody sane would waste money on a lawsuit in a state that doesn't matter.

It's just plain racist to suggest that black citizens don't have ID. It is required for guns, which are actually a constitutional right unlike voting for president. It is required to buy beer, rent an apartment, use most government benefits, or get a job. It's even required to enter many campaign events for democrats! So, that doesn't sound like good faith at all.

Funding the ID is fine. Some bullshit election ID card is no good. It needs to meet the normal standard, as specified by the Real ID Act of 2005. The US passport would be acceptable; let's make those free. The military ID would be acceptable.

Say, want to bias it against republicans who never travel to foreign countries? Make a US passport the only valid identification. I'm fine with that.

There's not an iota of evidence of the significant fraud you believe has occurred, and it's been tested in multiple courts in multiple states.

You are right that many people believe it did. And that's a huge, huge problem.

Can you explain any evidence at all that would convince you?

At this point in time, it's too late. Step 1 of the steal was the intentional security reduction. It prevented most evidence from being collected, and this made it easier and less scary to commit the crime. (we did get a horrifying Georgia video and then some absurd excuses, plus the Minnesota ballot purchase video, plus the Texas Judge with the pile of fake ID, plus the Texas door-to-door coercion, etc.)

As I wrote above, for future elections:

"Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses."

There was no legitimate excuse for destroying what little election security we had. You wouldn't have done that if you wanted to hold a valid election, but you wanted to "win" at any cost.

Some ominous words slipped out of Biden's mouth when speaking to voters in Michigan: "I don't need you to get me elected!"

As I said:

> Can you explain any evidence at all that would convince you?

And your response (TL;RD): "no".

You've drunk the cool aid, and it's a religion for you. I'm sorry for the state you have reached.

Any widespread fraud (and it would need to be widespread indeed, without the benefit of hindsight) would leave ample evidence. The conspiracy required to pull it off is mind-boggling, and keeping that a secret essentially impossible.

Ironically, Biden supporters have a better argument for believing in fraud conspiracies, given that Trump over-performed significantly compared to expectations in both of the last two elections. One man's "oh the polls must all have been wrong" is another man's "there were millions of illegal votes."

This is a scary time for the country. I sincerely hope this is just a personality cult and will fade along with Trump. Garden variety issue politics are at least halfway rational.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com