January 6 - alternative scenario

[manchesterman]

This is one for the real US constitution experts out there, as much as it is an"alternate history" scenario; however I've seen a couple of videos lately that have made me think.. what would have happened next on Jan 6 2021, if....

(1) The Republicans had had a majority in both houses

(2) Trump had appointed some like, say Josh Hawley or MTG as his VP, rather than Pence.  

So, when he gives his Jan 6 speech and urges the VP "to do the right thing". We all know this meant not certifying the votes from the official Electoral College and replacing them with "alternative electors".

Assuming that the VP does his bidding and the Congress passes it, what happens next?

Are there any powers left to stop this and enforce the true democratic result?  Can the military legally get involved?  The CIA? The FBI? The Supreme Court?  Could anything be done to prevent what would effectively be a coup?

* NB I'm not accepting, as a "get out answer", that enough GOP congress members would see sense and vote it down or that it would be "stopped" in any other way by Congress.  The scenario is specifically where the votes of the fake alternative electors are accepted and passed by Congress...what happens next?

In the absence of anyone knowing what would actually happen, I'd also be interested in member's thoughts on what they think might happen...

[johnloony]

Jul 24, 2023 23:00:52 GMT manchesterman said:

This is one for the real US constitution experts out there, as much as it is an"alternate history" scenario; however I've seen a couple of videos lately that have made me think.. what would have happened next on Jan 6 2021, if....

(1) The Republicans had had a majority in both houses

(2) Trump had appointed some like, say Josh Hawley or MTG as his VP, rather than Pence.  

So, when he gives his Jan 6 speech and urges the VP "to do the right thing". We all know this meant not certifying the votes from the official Electoral College and replacing them with "alternative electors".

Assuming that the VP does his bidding and the Congress passes it, what happens next?

Are there any powers left to stop this and enforce the true democratic result?  Can the military legally get involved?  The CIA? The FBI? The Supreme Court?  Could anything be done to prevent what would effectively be a coup?

* NB I'm not accepting, as a "get out answer", that enough GOP congress members would see sense and vote it down or that it would be "stopped" in any other way by Congress.  The scenario is specifically where the votes of the fake alternative electors are accepted and passed by Congress...what happens next?

In the absence of anyone knowing what would actually happen, I'd also be interested in member's thoughts on what they think might happen...

I think that Trump would have been duly certified as President, and would be expecting to be sworn in on 20th January forma second term. There might be a civil war, with elements of the military acting on their own initiative to uphold the Constitution. They might say that they have been ordered to do so by the “legitimate” President (Biden).

There would also be the pressure of international condemnation, which would be widespread and from many of the world’s major counties, including key allies in NATO and the EU. That might lead to sanctions and ending of trade deals.

In spite of all that happening, the fake reelection of Trump might still have prevailed anyway.

[timmullen1]

Jul 24, 2023 23:00:52 GMT manchesterman said:

This is one for the real US constitution experts out there, as much as it is an"alternate history" scenario; however I've seen a couple of videos lately that have made me think.. what would have happened next on Jan 6 2021, if....

(1) The Republicans had had a majority in both houses

(2) Trump had appointed some like, say Josh Hawley or MTG as his VP, rather than Pence.  

So, when he gives his Jan 6 speech and urges the VP "to do the right thing". We all know this meant not certifying the votes from the official Electoral College and replacing them with "alternative electors".

Assuming that the VP does his bidding and the Congress passes it, what happens next?

Are there any powers left to stop this and enforce the true democratic result?  Can the military legally get involved?  The CIA? The FBI? The Supreme Court?  Could anything be done to prevent what would effectively be a coup?

* NB I'm not accepting, as a "get out answer", that enough GOP congress members would see sense and vote it down or that it would be "stopped" in any other way by Congress.  The scenario is specifically where the votes of the fake alternative electors are accepted and passed by Congress...what happens next?

In the absence of anyone knowing what would actually happen, I'd also be interested in member's thoughts on what they think might happen...

I asked one of our CLP members, who’s an American working at Keele University this afternoon, and whilst as a lecturer in economics not claiming to be a Constitutional expert, his theory was thus: any Governor or State legislature (possibly a Secretary of State such as Georgia’s Brad Raffensberger or whatever title the state gives to its head of elections) could sue in Federal Court that the State had been disenfranchised by Congress not counting the electors certified at the properly convened meeting of the Electoral College in that State. Because Inauguration Day is fixed in the Constitution, the case, like Bush v Gore 2000, would likely be fast tracked to SCOTUS. The VP would then have to justify disregarding the votes of the properly convened Electoral College, which would be a hugely tough argument to make, given that it would require establishing why the certification at State level that is used at the Electoral College was flawed. In theory SCOTUS should rule that only the properly convened Electoral College votes should be counted and kick it back to Congress for a recount, this time using the correct Electoral College votes.

[manchesterman]

Above and beyond Tim. Above and beyond. Thanks to your colleague too

[timmullen1]

Jul 25, 2023 23:33:21 GMT manchesterman said:

Above and beyond Tim. Above and beyond. Thanks to your colleague too

It was a useful distraction, his wife’s Glaswegian and far harder to understand 😁

[nyx]

Jul 25, 2023 23:11:24 GMT timmullen1 said:

I asked one of our CLP members, who’s an American working at Keele University this afternoon, and whilst as a lecturer in economics not claiming to be a Constitutional expert, his theory was thus: any Governor or State legislature (possibly a Secretary of State such as Georgia’s Brad Raffensberger or whatever title the state gives to its head of elections) could sue in Federal Court that the State had been disenfranchised by Congress not counting the electors certified at the properly convened meeting of the Electoral College in that State. Because Inauguration Day is fixed in the Constitution, the case, like Bush v Gore 2000, would likely be fast tracked to SCOTUS. The VP would then have to justify disregarding the votes of the properly convened Electoral College, which would be a hugely tough argument to make, given that it would require establishing why the certification at State level that is used at the Electoral College was flawed. In theory SCOTUS should rule that only the properly convened Electoral College votes should be counted and kick it back to Congress for a recount, this time using the correct Electoral College votes.

That's reliant on the state in question deciding to take such legal action though. Arizona and Georgia both had Republican governors and actively deciding to take the step of pursuing legal action to reinstate the slate of Democratic electors would doubtless be very politically unpopular within their own parties.

[timmullen1]

Jul 26, 2023 12:31:33 GMT nyx said:

Jul 25, 2023 23:11:24 GMT timmullen1 said:

I asked one of our CLP members, who’s an American working at Keele University this afternoon, and whilst as a lecturer in economics not claiming to be a Constitutional expert, his theory was thus: any Governor or State legislature (possibly a Secretary of State such as Georgia’s Brad Raffensberger or whatever title the state gives to its head of elections) could sue in Federal Court that the State had been disenfranchised by Congress not counting the electors certified at the properly convened meeting of the Electoral College in that State. Because Inauguration Day is fixed in the Constitution, the case, like Bush v Gore 2000, would likely be fast tracked to SCOTUS. The VP would then have to justify disregarding the votes of the properly convened Electoral College, which would be a hugely tough argument to make, given that it would require establishing why the certification at State level that is used at the Electoral College was flawed. In theory SCOTUS should rule that only the properly convened Electoral College votes should be counted and kick it back to Congress for a recount, this time using the correct Electoral College votes.

That's reliant on the state in question deciding to take such legal action though. Arizona and Georgia both had Republican governors and actively deciding to take the step of pursuing legal action to reinstate the slate of Democratic electors would doubtless be very politically unpopular within their own parties.

Yes it would, although it’s not necessarily the sole call of the Governor; if Brad Raffensberger in Georgia were to argue that “these are not the numbers that I certified” then he has standing; and Ducey in Arizona was playing it by the book as well. I would also imagine there would be no reason why either a group of Democrats, either elected or just ordinary citizens, could not sue, and then said elected officials would have the choice of ‘fessing up or committing perjury.

[manchesterman]

I think Raffensberger in the Georgia audio tapes with Trump proved that , although he may be a Republican, he is a believer in democracy first, and I have no doubt he would 'do the right thing' as described above.

[timmullen1]

Jul 26, 2023 13:45:52 GMT manchesterman said:

I think Raffensberger in the Georgia audio tapes with Trump proved that , although he may be a Republican, he is a believer in democracy first, and I have no doubt he would 'do the right thing' as described above.

Ditto then Governor Ducey, and his successor Katie Hobbs, who at the time was the chief election official in the State.

[manchesterman]

Indeed. I remember her well as I used to work with a Kate Hobbs,so the name stuck in my mind!

[timmullen1]

Jul 26, 2023 14:11:54 GMT manchesterman said:

Indeed. I remember her well as I used to work with a Kate Hobbs,so the name stuck in my mind!

I keep getting her confused with the former tennis player Anne Hobbs.

[dundas]

Jul 24, 2023 23:00:52 GMT manchesterman said:

This is one for the real US constitution experts out there, as much as it is an"alternate history" scenario; however I've seen a couple of videos lately that have made me think.. what would have happened next on Jan 6 2021, if....

So, when he gives his Jan 6 speech and urges the VP "to do the right thing". We all know this meant not certifying the votes from the official Electoral College and replacing them with "alternative electors".

Assuming that the VP does his bidding and the Congress passes it, what happens next?

Trump is inauguarated and Qanonists do not become disheartened and leave the field of play. As a result, police are unable to have a total clampdown on anti-lockdown rallies/raves or other protest. One of these activists is able to inform Sarah Everard of the vagaries of Section 50, Rice vs Connolly 1966, etc. at the Clapham Common rally of January 2021 and she refuses to accompany the Met's representative Wayne Couzens when later approached by him and survives. He goes on to kill his Ukrainian wife shortly after the escalation of war in Ukraine and cause an even greater outrage. Trump's inability to have control due to the suspicious circumstances of his re-election mean vaccine passports are never abandoned for major events in the West, which means the anti-lockdown rallies/raves evolve to the cultural sphere. The first footie cup final is held on May 23 in Hyde Park, and over 4 million watch the shaky phone footage of the Matt Le Tissier's managed South Coast besting John Terry's London 2-1, with 500k attending live. Megan Davison presents the trophy to the winners, and Right Said Fred sign Abide with Me a cappella prior to the match. In lieu of adverts, Tyson Fury promotes his upcoming bout in the same venue at half time. GB News fails to launch so Neil Oliver remains on Talk radio. Talktv does launch, but with Eammon Holmes instead of Piers Morgan. Boris Johnson remains Prime Minister as Tory MPs cling to nurse for fear of worse, and Michael Fabricant is Leader of the House and performs tricks with a sword at the coronation of Queen Anne.