The postal workers in the Texas case clearly believed it.
Those people can and probably will face federal charges if they haven’t already and the accusations have merit (which the Supreme Court did not address). The Supreme Court case does not change that.
Post Office workers are union employees with a seniority system. It’s not as if they’re going to be able to mass-hire a bunch of ideological fanatics to throw out election mail for Trump.
As far as I can tell, this Peter Ticktin guy behind this draft EO doesn’t even WORK for Trump or the admin - he’s just a fanboy who went to high school with Trump, wrote a book about Trump and has a law office in Orlando where he specializes in divorces and mortgages.
The whole article that inspired this thread basically boils down to one guy saying “Wouldn’t it be cool if Trump did this thing I thought of”.
Ugh, one of the more blatant hangers on, holding tight to the bespoiled robes of The Repulsive One. Is there anyone in his past or present that isn’t a complete schmuck?
Those Federal charges would be subject to the vagaries of Pam Bondi and could be hastily obviated with Presidential Pardons.
You haven’t forgotten, I assume, that Trump ‘immediately’ pardoned some 2,000 J6 participants who – it could be readily argued – participated in an active effort to overthrow the US government?
He’s talking about charges from the other federal government, the one Trump doesn’t control.
Want to bet they won’t?
Here’s the scenario you want us to believe:
-
Postal workers in D heavy areas in swing states dump enough ballots to move the EC votes to a R in enough states (I’m talking 2028, not mid-terms)
-
The R candidate miraculously wins the 2028 election.
-
He then directs the DOJ (as R presidents now run the DOJ as their personal fiefdom) to prosecute the people who helped him win the election.
Aint’ gonna happen.
In a word: “yes”.
Governor Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, and AG Paxton will do whatever Trump wants. And, if it can’t be done in the time available? Oh well. They’ll get done what they can. I’m sure they’ll make sure that voters in Midland, Odessa, Abilene, Amarillo, Fort Worth, and points in between will get registered LONG before voters in Austin, San Antonio, or Houston.
I’m not saying they will, or won’t, but they have the perfect dodge based on “equality” and precedent. Remember, Texas went to some efforts to keep things “fair” by assigning assets based on the county, NOT the population. So if all these tiny, rural communities get the same assets to facilitate the transition that ones containing the cities of Dallas and Austin, well, it’s *fair" isn’t it? Each County got the same resources…
Lots of way to put a thumb… screw that an arm on the scales while saying it’s only fair.
Trump’s not going to be president forever.
Although, AIUI, Presidential Pardons pretty much are forever.
Hypothetically, why wouldn’t the guy who granted Pardons to a couple thousand of the J6 insurrectionists pardon a “wayward Cliff Clavin who was a patriot in the highest tradition?”
For now. It’s entirely possible that the nature of our constitutional order could change in the near future.
Trump, you are exceedingly stupid and dangerous. (Not that he’d ever read this but I feel better now.) Banish mail-in voting? How are the disabled, the elderly, and the shut-ins to vote? Of course, neither he nor anyone else in his shambles of an administration would think of that. It would take away my right to vote his ass out of office. I can barely wait. Anyway I’m pointing this out because I haven’t heard anyone else mentioning it.
< Trump voice > Losers like that don’t deserve to vote. I prefer my voters to be strong able bodied men!
Welcome! We have covered that- just not in this thread.
Welcome!
You are aware that should you to be seeking to enter the USA, require a visa and therefore need to provide 5 years of social media history to support your application that you might just have disqualified yourself?
The disbarred foreign contingent of The Dope are having blazers made.
So would I and I’m very proud of it!
Taking this back to the OP though, we’ve seen some pushback from the courts, and even the SCOTUS on how Trump’s “emergency” declarations aren’t getting the sort of support he wants, though in many cases, it’s only after letting it happen long enough to have accomplished many of the political goals.
Given that, while I do think that such a Trumped up (you may boo me for that) excuse as laid out in the OP would likely fail, though not before further crippling our faith in the process. But, as recent events have played out, it seems that in addition to providing distraction from woes at home, the conflict in Iran may be part of a balloon by Trump et al. Create or extend a conflict, then point at the conflict and possible “enemy agents” interfering to generate enough plausible deniability to allow this SCOTUS to declare it acceptable just this once. Especially if all that it does is allow Trump to put federal troops near voting areas and detain “suspicious” (POC/Democrats/Etc.) people in the name of public safety.
[ please note, I’m using the existing war in Iran as an example of such a use, not wanting to derail the conversation in *this thread ]