Report: Some House Democrats Likely Won’t Certify a Trump Victory
I thought insurrections were bad?
This sounds insurrectiony!
Axios reported that some top House Democrats won’t certify a Trump victory.
House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, who has an obsession with January 6, is one of those Democrats:
What they’re saying: Raskin, the House Oversight Committee ranking member and former Jan. 6 committee member who objected to Trump electors in 2017, told Axios in an interview that if Trump “won a free, fair and honest election, then we would obviously accept it.”
- However, Raskin said he “definitely” doesn’t assume that Trump would use free, fair and honest means to secure a victory.
- Trump “is doing whatever he can to try to interfere with the process, whether we’re talking about manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska or manipulating the vote count in Georgia or imposing other kinds of impediments,” Raskin said.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) objected to former President George W. Bush’s victory in 2004.
Schakowsky recently said, “I don’t know what kind of shenanigans he [Trump] is planning.” If he wins, she said the Democrats “would have to, in any election … make sure that all the rules have been followed.”
When called out, Schakowsy tried to backtrack because “she was ‘proud to … join all my Democratic colleagues in certifying the 2020 election’ and looks forward to ‘doing the same in January 2025.'”
Okay, lady.
House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA) objected Trump’s 2016 victory over loser Hillary Clinton:
Zoom in: House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who also objected to Trump electors in 2017, said Democrats would certify a Trump victory “assuming everything goes the way we expect it to.”
- “We have to see how it all happens,” McGovern told Axios – though he added, “My expectation is that we would.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) tried to calm down the rhetoric, claiming “there is little chance of an organized effort to decertify electors.”
But Jeffries leaves a slight crack in the door: “House Democrats are going to do everything necessary to … ensure that the winner of the presidential election is certified on January 6th without drama or consequences.”
In other words, prepare for chaos no matter who wins.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As with all things, it is only bad when Republicans do it.
It’s in the Constitution, just as it was for Trump in 2020.
There is a difference here. Trump was the candidate in 2020 and now in 2024 and the dispute pathways available to him in both cases are in the Constitution.
The Democrats like Raskin are NOT the candidates, and their possible refusal to certify a Trump victory must have more of a justification than “We hate Donald Trump.”
No, there is nothing in the constitution about candidates, and it certainly doesn’t make “dispute pathways available” to them.
Under the Electoral Count Act (which John Eastman plausibly claims is unconstitutional), the only “dispute pathway” belongs to Congressmen, such as the Republicans who challenged the count in 2020, or the Dems who did so on previous occasions, and such as Raskin.
There’s nothing in the constitution about challenging electors. It’s a major defect in the constitution that it simply doesn’t address the whole question, and gives no clue as to how such a dispute should be resolved.
John Eastman is probably correct that the Electoral Count Act passed after the 1877 crisis is unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean the vice president of the time was correct in claiming that he had the power to exclude votes that he didn’t believe to be valid.
So, just like 2016. Okay.
Join me in praying that Harris/Walz continue their decent into political irrelevance such that the coattails are so strong for Republicans that the only time we see/hear from these idiots is to bask in the warm glow of their lamentations.
Like Goebbels, they accuse us of exactly what they themselves are doing
Raskin remains a turd.
He’s more like chronic diarrhea in my book, but I get your meaning . . .
This sounds like election denial to me.
So it’s “election denying” season now?
I still have my “election deniers are bad” decorations up.
The incoming House certifies elections, and if Trump wins expect a Republican majority.
Not if it is real close. The path to a House majority runs through NY and CA, and that is why Trump is doing rallies in those states. And if the margin is really tight, the Democrats could take temporary control by assassinating a few Republicans (I’m sure Iran will do this for them) or using other means to stop them from actually taking their seats on Jan 3.
Republicans already have a majority as it is. I doubt they lose ANY seats if Trump wins.
No, the House does not certify presidential elections. Nobody :”certifies” them, but the official count is witnessed by a joint meeting of both houses of congress.
The constitution doesn’t give congress any power to reject electors; nor does it give the vice president such a power. And yet someone must have it, so it’s a problem.
This problem was supposedly resolved by passing the Electoral Count Act, which gives the power to both houses of Congress (not just the House); a challenge must be uphold by both houses.
But as John Eastman pointed out, who gave Congress the right to pass such a law?
they want that rhetoric to spark online resistance so they can make stronger moves against free speech
And just like that the media changes its tune! The whores!!
Raskin also stated that the Dems don’t steal elections. I think that he is “on the wrong side of history”.
I am certain this election will go into overtime, and won’t be resolved until January. There are many possible scenarios, but I don’t know which one will actually happen. The most likely are:
— Trump wins exactly 270, but there is an unfaithful elector making it 269
— Same as above with Harris
— Trump seems to win PA (or other swing state) by a few hundred votes, but the Democrats steal it in the recount when an “election official” finds a bag of ballots in the trunk of his car, and that official is killed before he can testify
— It all depends on GA, but they can’t do a consistent recount
— Trump “wins”, but the House is Dem, and they immediately proceed to disqualify him and elect Harris by 26 state delegations (For this to happen, Mary Peltola has to win Alaska)
— It is a 269-269 tie, and the FBI arrests enough incoming Republicans to prevent a few Republicans from convening in the House, so they can elect Harris.
— Trump “wins”, but Judge Merchan puts him in jail so he can’t be sworn in.
The House can’t “disqualify” him without the Senate. (And it’s doubtful whether they can do so even with the senate.)
And congressmen on their way to a session have immunity from arrest.
Raskin should definitely be certified.
I’m not in a panic. From the way the pollsters are shifting their sampling toward realism instead of D+25, and Trump’s lead is increasing, I’m betting he will clear 270 electoral votes by a few states on election night. Likewise, there will be a few frothing elected loons trying to derail the counting of the ballots and the inauguration, but most of the Dems are at least marginally sane and will let him be seated while the loons screech and throw poo. It’s also possible, maybe, that the Republicans will control both houses of Congress at that time. If so, we should have four years of sanity with shrieking and gibbering of fools and media (but I repeat myself) hopefully followed by eight years of Vance/DeSantis.
Hey, I can dream.
Raskin: sure we’ll accept the election if it’s free and honest and fair. Then in the next breath, he sets it up for not accepting by declaring that Trump will interfere, so his win is automatically suspect. What a load of b.s.
I don’t see a peaceful transfer of power.
Following the normal certification process implies that there is still a working Social and Political Contract in force. I do not think that is a given anymore. If there IS a real election, and Trump wins, I expect a significant number of Leftists to refuse to vote to certify the win. And indeed, I would not be surprised if there were a number of GOPe-types joining them.
And we are so split as a nation anymore, I am not sure that IF there is a real election and we are suicidal enough that Harris wins, that all Republicans will vote to certify.
Finally, if there are doubts as to the validity of the reported vote count either way, the legitimacy of either result will be questioned, And the result could be anything up to and including “Krieg ist nichts anderes als die Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs unter Hinzufügung anderer Mittel . . .“.
Subotai Bahadur