The problem with assuming that sufficient outrage will result in fewer votes for Trump: his strategy doesn’t depend on getting more votes than Biden. He hopes to litigate his way to a 2nd term, and the courts are impervious to public outrage.
Maybe this is our October Surprise.
Wait till they tally up how much income he and his properties have made – since November 2016.
I agree fully. But it’s also true that Trump’s planned shenanigans will go more smoothly if the vote totals (Biden versus Trump) are close.
If Biden really does get into landslide-territory, the Trump-enablers’ arguments–to state legislatures, to Congress, and possibly to SCOTUS–will be shakier.
And those who are poised to help Trump “win” via seating alternate electors, stopping ballot counts early, and other dirty tricks, will be unhappy; they’d prefer to be able to cover their activities with a veneer of legitimacy. If the vote is not close, that becomes less likely.
Two responses to that:
-
The article I saw seemed more focused on hypothetical orders Trump might give, between now and January, to send the military to cities to “maintain order” or anything along those lines. Chairman General Mark Milley states “I will not follow an unlawful order”.
-
What I read into the article (and I’m not sure if it exactly says this), is that any order by a new CiC to extract Trump from the White House might also be illegal, as being not the job of the military to do.
This may be the article I saw, or one very similar:
And that is pretty much what I - and I’m sure most of us - have suspected all along: the presidency is basically cash flow for his shell game. His businesses make no money. He is dependent on loans from foreign sources, who now almost certainly have some sort of financial leverage over him.
This is also why I think he is desperate to stay in the White House even though he’s probably miserable. Staying in power is a zero-sum matter of survival for him at this point. He knows it, and his family knows it.
In other words, he’s failed his way to the very top, and there ain’t no higher top left for him to fail toward. When this runs out, he’s hosed.
Perfect summary:
"To summarize the NYT story: Trump got a bunch of from his daddy. He lost it all, but then he got paid hundreds of millions to play a billionaire on TV. He tried to use that to become a real billionaire, but he lost it all again.
Now he’s starting over, but we’re his daddy."
Drudge:
Re: All those posts, from just a few above, about the NYT exposé(s) of his tax games:
Wasn’t there a big NYT exposé a couple years ago on the same subject? IIRC it made a big splash briefly at the time but then quickly faded from sight and never really got much traction at least in the public eye.
Will this be different this time? Is there new stuff here beyond what we saw a couple of years ago?
Question: Okay, suppose Trump, trying to stay in power, succeeds in totally confounding the election, so that we won’t know in time, and may never know (as he himself has predicted) the outcome?
How does that imply that Trump remains president? As noted many times by posters on this board, just because we might not have a result for this election, doesn’t mean Trump remains president past January 20.
Yet Trump seems to be pretending that if there is no known outcome, then HE remains president. Does he really think that? What is his game, in pushing this theory?
Yes, and when Trump’s niece Mary released her book recently, it came out that she was, in fact, a major source for the earlier NYT story.
Are you curious, in case you were thinking of getting one, how much it costs to take care of an extra-terrestrial brain-sucking ferret?
BREAKING:
Yep, that sounds broken all right.
Any indication of what might have precipitated all that?
I’m wondering about this, too. If we don’t have a clear vote count by Jan 20, then does trump stay in office by default? Surely not. I know. Don’t call you Shirley.
Hey everybody, I came up with a fantastic (as in, fantasy) plan:
Suppose the American Voters can eventually elect a sufficient majority to the Senate (perhaps including some sensible Republicans) to have an impeachment-capable supermajority.
Let Congress then impeach EVERY judge and justice appointed by Trump. Never mind what the charges are, they can always find something.
With a credible threat that the Senate can convict and remove them, then offer them all a “plea bargain” of sorts: In any cases whatsoever involving Trump or his family or his businesses that may come before them, criminal or civil, they will agree to recuse themselves, for all eternity.
Throw all of Trump’s cabinet and perhaps other appointees into the deal for good measure as well.
The electors cast their votes in early December. If not all the votes are cast, they do not count and the result is based on the majority of votes that have been cast. The count is reported to the new Speaker of the House when the new session begins. As soon as the Speaker certifies the result, end of story.
The way our laws are written, the term of office for POTUS (and VPOTUS) runs to Jan 20. As our laws are currently written, the term is time-limited, rather than limited by having a new election, i.e. there is no contingency which allows for an incumbent to simply stay in office because of a contested election.
That’s why all the shenanigans about the election. There’s a desire for a veneer of legitimacy towards the election but also a desire not to accept the legitimacy of any election that results in a loss. They recognize the election is important but are acutely aware there is a significant risk it will not go the way they hope.
And in light of the Times article, it’s clear there is also a very real fear of looming financial issues and quite possibly legal issues resulting from those - fears that could be assuaged by virtue of holding high political office.
Of course, the calculus changes if there are sufficient people willing to openly ignore or flout federal law, but that’s always the case.
Isn’t that the uniformed (“I didn’t know better despite gaining command rank.”) asshole who led The Battle For Lafayette Park?
Yes, the same. But he’s been fairly consistently repentant for that (or at least is putting on a good act), and has given the impression that he did know better but had a little (ahem) lapse of judgement there. In other words, he inhaled.
Mattis appears to be on board too.
Esper, maybe.