The Twitter threads answering questions about the presidential election have gotten a bit long, so against my better judgment I put everything into a YouTube video 😬

Watch when you can, and share with your crazy uncle on Facebook
Sadly no, he slept the entire time 😂 https://twitter.com/alisonmalort/status/1328705775498387457
Also: shout-out to @halberdrayne for the video thumbnail graphic! 👊 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1328705008670543875
I knooooooowwww 😩

Broke my own rule against putting out YouTube content 🤦‍♂️ https://twitter.com/secos/status/1328709213141540864
But, in fairness to myself, I told everybody early on that hoping to get legal knowledge from YouTube is a terrible idea!
@secos
https://twitter.com/z3dster/status/1328713232878620672
Inspiration for that particular slide was drawn from @RadioFreeTom and his book ☺️ https://twitter.com/thirteensqirrlz/status/1328713564287283201
That was basically the very first comment, posted overnight while I was asleep waiting for Google to finish processing the video 🤦‍♂️ https://twitter.com/MastaOfMp3s/status/1328716624103432192
Can confirm https://twitter.com/CaliforniaSalvo/status/1328714299469074434
No 😩 I didn't notice until it was uploaded that the clip didn't record for some reason 🤦‍♂️ https://twitter.com/j_odinsson8/status/1328728269676548097
I used YouTube Studio to trim out that section, but apparently it hasn't finished processing yet
Nah, just stupidity on my part – I forgot to tell the ScreenFlow app to record computer audio, because that one slide is the only one that had any 😑 https://twitter.com/docmoonlight/status/1328728961568817152
It wasn't. 'Twas user error https://twitter.com/m1matas/status/1328733039631863808
Can't say I didn't forewarn you! I added those disclaimers for a reason 😂 https://twitter.com/ratify_the_era/status/1328730377545003009
Don't forget the excellent flag background too! 🇺🇸 https://twitter.com/halberdrayne/status/1328711969680003072
The latter

The second someone said "the music didn't play" I immediately recognized the f*ckup 🤦‍♂️ https://twitter.com/ckblackm/status/1328734467939295232
I tended to draw a distinction between PEBKAC and ID10T, with the former being clueless and the latter being willfully stupid https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1328736411965538304
Yeah probably an error on my end

He was elected in '66, blocked from oath in '67 and sued, re-elected in '68, sworn in '69, case decided in '69 https://twitter.com/dylancdoherty/status/1328743486120669187
Appreciate the heads up, I didn't realize he used all 3 names!

And thanks for the kind words! 👊 https://twitter.com/clarencegaines2/status/1328740959362846720
https://twitter.com/ArmaVerus/status/1328728656550764544
Yyyeeeaaahhh I was kicking myself as soon as I heard the words leave my lips 🤦‍♂️

I was too busy trying to avoid the "umm"s and "uhh"s and "you know"s https://twitter.com/ultraviolentl/status/1328721484924268550
There is! It's the copy/paste of the 12th Amendment, that's how it was spelled back then https://twitter.com/caryden/status/1328749019145891841
I wanted to make sure people had the source material and the explanation and the links for more, so they're better equipped to refute nonsense in the future 😉 https://twitter.com/jamesfrye/status/1328750892112220161
https://twitter.com/jasonacarrick/status/1328758052753817600
People don't believe me when I say I have zero interest in YouTube

You'd think they'd get the hint with the 4 years between uploads! 😂 https://twitter.com/Impulse725/status/1328786760424329216
We call this "damning with faint praise" https://twitter.com/h33ltoe/status/1328760434816520192
Appreciate the support! 👊 https://twitter.com/lordofanime/status/1328795560824934402
I don't watch punditry hardly at all, is that a common thing with him? 😂 https://twitter.com/fearlessgirl24/status/1328781868880318464
Woof, that did not age well *at all* 😂 https://twitter.com/theheman9/status/1328808254688772096
It would end up being litigated

Section (e) of the Presidential Succession Act requires the Acting President to meet the eligibility qualifications of the President

1/ https://twitter.com/kvanh/status/1328808713478676487
It's ambiguous whether that's just the prereqs of the main doc (native born 35+ == Obama is eligible), or if that includes the limitations of the 22nd too (since Obama couldn't file to run to be President again, he's ineligible, so he'd be ineligible Inder the Act)

2/
@kvanh
Prevailing view among law commentator ppl seems to be the latter, that he's ineligible. In which case it would be President Pro Tempore of the Senate

3/3
@kvanh
Yep, that's him! @marceelias https://twitter.com/johngrahamiv/status/1328817841286557697
That f*ckin' guy... 🤦‍♂️

I didn't know Texas elected minimally sentient rocks to Congress, truly https://twitter.com/outerleftfield/status/1328823985522544644
Disagree. Madison Cawthorn is a fully sentient Adolf Hitler enthusiast, inveterate liar, and sex pest https://twitter.com/outerleftfield/status/1328846155602685952
Expected for an evenly split board with half the members dancing to whatever Donald Trump wants

The Michigan Board of Elections will certify instead, on 11/23 https://twitter.com/lingo_tango/status/1328845817759887361
Lots of states have evenly split local and state Boards of Election, it doesn't stop them from certifying

If the SBOE doesn't do it's job on 11/23, next step is filing for a court order

Still plenty of time to get everything done before 12/8 safe harbor deadline https://twitter.com/zach13090/status/1328847934310539265
More like: https://twitter.com/cranky_david/status/1328862876141035520
Yes to both. If the SBOE doesn't certify, Biden files for a writ of mandamus compelling certification – and either the SBOE certifies while the case is pending, or the court compels it https://twitter.com/alaw202/status/1328861155616583680
I forgot about the racism, that was late in the campaign https://twitter.com/infosecadrian/status/1328875930035564544
Contempt hearings and jail https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1328866621125963783
If they don't appoint any electors at all, they're just removed from the count. So 522 total EVs, and Biden needs 262 to win

If they appoint a Trump slate, you get Acting President Pelosi https://twitter.com/jacksoncvaret/status/1328873393098207232
Senate does what the House wants, or you end up with Acting President Nancy Pelosi https://twitter.com/jeo1312/status/1328900663720501251
Nah, that's a contingent election under the 12th Amendment

Have to finish counting the votes before you get to that point, and 3 USC §15 enables either chamber to permanently pause the vote-counting https://twitter.com/jeo1312/status/1328904335099650049
It's always been that way

See Hayes-Tilden and the Compromise of 1877 https://twitter.com/kendysharles/status/1328904144132902912
Litigation does not stop certification

Late-appointed slates require Congressional approval

This tactic won't work https://twitter.com/rowaenthe/status/1328907618979622914
Appreciate it sir! https://twitter.com/raymundmitchell/status/1328916251561906176
If they really and truly are collectively that bad, then it's bona fide pitchforks and torches time, with severed heads on pikes for good measure

I don't think they're that bad though, they know the consequences https://twitter.com/majorhippie/status/1328910032801554434
"Ongoing criminal conduct" is a bit of a misnomer – it's just another day with new crimes that happen to tie in to old crimes

Contempt can be pardoned, and continuing the conduct that led to the pardoned contempt can lead to more contempt https://twitter.com/greatlimmick/status/1328906080596992001
Need to be stupidly rich first, and ideally have my student loans paid off 😂 https://twitter.com/vichristi/status/1328917315266760704
"A Cajun filet biscuit in every pot!" https://twitter.com/foodsevelt/status/1328918478808518656
I would definitely bring back allllllllll of my old hype men if I ran for President https://twitter.com/DanManX/status/1328921779100913665
There's no VP at all in an Acting President scenario

The Presidential Succession Act doesn't provide for one to automatically exist, and any replacement VP would require approval by both the House and the Senate under the 25th Amendment Section 2 https://twitter.com/muffytrollslayr/status/1328988866536112128
The Governor's role under the ECA is just ministerial, certifying whichever slate (chosen in manner set by legislature) is the "true" slate

If ECA is unconstitutional, we go back to pre-ECA Joint Rule 22 era where Congress can reject whatever slate it wants for any reason at all https://twitter.com/lrfesq1/status/1328941230374481921
Honestly... this would probably qualify for 1 hour of general CLE credit if I got it approved 😂 https://twitter.com/zefferal/status/1329061190161604608
I'm not sufficiently steeped in D caucus internal politics to have a competent opinion on who they should / shouldn't choose

But, if it seems on 12/14 that a shenanigans scenario is likely on 1/6, making Joe Biden the Speaker is probably the easiest way to stop it https://twitter.com/asafperes/status/1329127478535852033
It's a new Speaker of the House every time, as long as the House keeps electing new Speakers

No President by 1/20 ➡️ Speaker resigns and is sworn in as Acting President ➡️ House elects new Speaker

If Acting President then dies ➡️ new Speaker resigns and is sworn in https://twitter.com/Pyronaut_/status/1329130834373136385
Still can't see most of what y'all are sending 😑

Gotta head to bed, but took some screenshots of the YouTube view stats pre- and post-LegalEagle bump

Similar problem(?) on Twitter, hence why my mentions aren't working right
Still can't see most of what y'all are sending Gotta head to bed, but took some screenshots of the YouTube view stats pre- and post-LegalEagle bumpSimilar problem(?) on Twitter, hence why my mentions aren't working right
Still can't see most of what y'all are sending Gotta head to bed, but took some screenshots of the YouTube view stats pre- and post-LegalEagle bumpSimilar problem(?) on Twitter, hence why my mentions aren't working right
Still can't see most of what y'all are sending Gotta head to bed, but took some screenshots of the YouTube view stats pre- and post-LegalEagle bumpSimilar problem(?) on Twitter, hence why my mentions aren't working right
There's no separate voting process for the House like there is for President; once a state certifies, they send people to Congress

Most states have already certified

There will, 100%, be a new Congress on 1/3 that will elect a Speaker https://twitter.com/minouch11705945/status/1329420182457114624
Certainly possible, but unlikely IMO https://twitter.com/minouch11705945/status/1329435011846696961
They don't have any options; either chamber can indefinitely delay the proceedings, and the Presidential Succession Act is a pre-existing law that can only be changed with majorities in both houses and a signature by the President https://twitter.com/minouch11705945/status/1329451972034957329
No, they don't vote until Congress convenes on January 3rd https://twitter.com/pokerzomb/status/1329450003237138433
"Almost assuredly no" is hedging too much

It's a definite no – unless a majority of the Democrat-controlled House gives its blessing https://twitter.com/zachmontellaro/status/1329423659535118338
Sure. That's what happened in Hayes-Tilden and the Compromise of 1877 – Tilden won the popular vote and was up +20 in the electoral vote, before Congress started counting

It ended with Hayes as President, in exchange for ending Reconstruction https://twitter.com/jesin00/status/1329459795041128451
No

That's like saying "the sun will go nova tomorrow and we'll all be fried to a crisp" – theoretically possible (as is Dems' blessing Trump shenanigans), but a 0.0000% chance of happening https://twitter.com/poodleskirt2/status/1329460166065053698
The law is crystal clear: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1328705008670543875

Links in the show notes to exhaustive written materials https://twitter.com/jackzucker/status/1329461431138471945
The popular vote does determine the House – there's no Electoral College intermediary – but there are a variety of factors that make House elections unrepresentative (gerrymandering, self-sorting of the electorate, long span of time since last Census / redistricting / etc) https://twitter.com/muffytrollslayr/status/1329464427322568710
I think @jedshug is exactly right; I mention that exact possibility in the video linked at the top of the thread, circa the 13:30 timestamp https://twitter.com/mbyrnes37/status/1329505206527270913
I'm a strong believer in comparative advantage and playing to one's strengths – my strength is threading things on Twitter, not doing videos (I can barely do an audio-only podcast)

That's why I send ppl to @LegalEagleDJ's channel: he knows what he's doing and does it well https://twitter.com/xxfortunadoxx/status/1329540294883282947
1️⃣ No. The "Officer" language comes from the original succession clause in Article II §1, but that was amended by the 20th Amendment §3 (empowering Congress to provide for "such person" in the Succession Act, vs "what Officer" in the original)

2️⃣ No https://twitter.com/point5empty/status/1329556948862136321
Not sure, I haven't done the math

The odds of any one state appointing zero electors at all is vanishingly small – getting 5+ to do it is sun-going-nova-tomorrow odds https://twitter.com/eklipse80/status/1329647043460132864
Happy to, just gotta figure out how to do it – I don't see that option anywhere in the YouTube Studio app, so I may need to be on the computer for it https://twitter.com/aslohioan/status/1329610396622348290
They're *already* claiming it was totally stolen regardless of facts

The only thing that matters, at all, is Trump being out of office https://twitter.com/kat_missouri/status/1329664281835671554
Yes. That's what happened with the Hayes-Tilden election in 1876-77

Congress has always had this power since the Washington administration https://twitter.com/briguycali/status/1329721210549248002
https://twitter.com/doynerdc/status/1329779247582474246
If 218 Congresscritters want a coup, and the person they elected Speaker wants to be forced to resign from Congress to temporarily act as Acting President, and they're all fine with the ensuing political fallout, yes https://twitter.com/youreconprof/status/1329785497279995916
They have to swear in a majority to have a quorum, but yes

Once you've got 218+ sworn Congresscritters on the same page, they can coup away https://twitter.com/youreconprof/status/1329786464968843268
Only if I can do a John Bercow-esque "ORRRRDEEHHH!" at least once for C-SPAN 😉 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1329681062243418112
It would be a series of Speakers of the House, because once one Speaker resigned to become Acting President, the House elects a new Speaker (who then is next in line because there's no VP)

It's only possible to get to #4+ in the succession list if there's a mass casualty event https://twitter.com/jedge_com/status/1329912055864958976
It was a criminally underrated show too, I loved all 3 seasons https://twitter.com/SparkleApplePie/status/1329917905849315328
Anyone can sue anyone else for any thing at any time – that doesn't mean they have more than a 0.0% chance to win https://twitter.com/oliverbabish63/status/1329947758049058817
The issue is that they've got a variety of lawyers filing in multiple different jurisdictions, so the odds of ever being in front of the same judge more than 1-2x are slim

I doubt we'll ever see any sanctions https://twitter.com/trogdor8768/status/1329950708725141505
It works against people who aren't accustomed to being sued 😉 SLAPPs are ineffective against the Government, which will be true of these too – just a tremendous waste of taxpayer money (yay Republicans!) https://twitter.com/opensorceress/status/1329953168340504576
From your fingers to God's Twitter app https://twitter.com/popelizbet/status/1329975334754717696
Harris becomes President-elect, and there would be no VP initially

Once she's sworn in, she'd nominate a VP under 25th Amendment §2, that would need a majority vote from both the House and the Senate https://twitter.com/JacksonCVaret/status/1329973607209070593
I skimmed the tweet I was replying to and thought it was referring to inauguration, not the Electoral College voting

Pre-EC mtg, the national parties would use their own internal rules to choose who would be the replacement for POTUS (+ VP if they made Harris the POTUS nominee) https://twitter.com/bpettichord/status/1329977860606582787
It does now; it didn't then

Kennedy's assassination – and the period from Nov 1963 to Jan 1965 when there was no VP at all – was part of the rationale for adding it to the 25th Amendment (which was ratified in 1967) https://twitter.com/Orchidorkidum/status/1329977753484079105
Not ex post facto. They can make them required for the future (similar to anti-SLAPP statutes) but I'm skeptical it would ever happen https://twitter.com/trogdor8768/status/1329979036647518209
I stopped watching cable news back during the early years of the Iraq War, so don't know what @maddow covered – everything is going to play out on schedule

Even in a worst case scenario, we still end up with a D President https://twitter.com/joshm662/status/1329979243984547840
Apparently we're trending on @dailykos?? 😱

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/20/1997215/-An-Excellent-Primer-on-Why-There-Will-Not-Be-a-Coup-No-Matter-What-Trump-Does
Ain't that the truth! 😂

I remember @anamariecox musing 2-3 years ago about how these alliances will play out once Trump is gone. We'll see... https://twitter.com/BrianRetford/status/1330006080311619585
Also, can I say: the comments on YouTube reinforce my perceptions of YouTube 😬
*Could have worked

There are still a lot of separate things that have to line up: 218+ legislators agreeing, a Speaker willing to permanently resign to take a position that's only temporary, Congresscritters being fine with electoral blowback, etc https://twitter.com/eoellrich83/status/1330008609451765760
These ones write novellas of bullsh*t and I frankly don't have the time or patience https://twitter.com/Samuraiko/status/1330008865904082944
Actual example: "I think you are completely delusional if you don't think there's something possibly there that deserves investigation based on their statements I heard (if it can be investigated even)" and continues to go on for another 400 words

Me:
Where would I even begin?

➡️ Idgaf if nutty people think I'm delusional, completely or otherwise

➡️ "something" "possibly"? That's not a standard for any investigation anywhere nor should it be

➡️ "their statements I heard" – a random corner crackhead says all sorts of things
The number of governments that freaked out over the protests earlier this year suggests otherwise

Our entire system would collapse if more than a small % of the populace tried to burn it down at once https://twitter.com/beautype/status/1330171822114025472
That's a new one I think 😂 I usually get Dean Norris https://twitter.com/LapierPamela/status/1330183211910041603
Re-assigning circuits is standard practice when a new Justice is added to the Supreme Court

This is totally insignificant. Particularly when controversial applications are routinely referred to the full court https://twitter.com/violiav/status/1330202269841838083
This isn't about Trump, it's about the Supreme Court – which has continued to act as it always has for 4 years now https://twitter.com/grownuppunk/status/1330208026247225353
It's common for Supreme Court justices to be assigned to circuits where they were previously circuit judges, yes

Alito used to be on the 3rd Circuit, which includes PA

Barrett used to be on the 7th Circuit, which includes WI

Sotomayor and Gorsuch got their old circuits too https://twitter.com/jersey77girl/status/1330207956080750594
No offense taken, I stipulate I am nowhere near the level of mainstream media personality 😆 https://twitter.com/arjetton/status/1330574949841575943
I definitely am 😂 https://twitter.com/beckywiren/status/1330598512107655183
👊 https://twitter.com/progrssvwitness/status/1330601496644374534
They'll lose

The 3rd Circuit just days ago ruled against them on a different case with the exact same legal theory – pointed out by the judge who dismissed this case

It's like banging your head into a brick wall, and then banging your client's head into the same brick wall https://twitter.com/Pogman42/status/1330613257569136641
Idiocy, and/or wanting to stretch out the grifting window https://twitter.com/Bowen_Thaylin/status/1330616312196964354
If SCOTUS agrees to hear it, yes

There is no requirement for SCOTUS to take the case https://twitter.com/emc2wi/status/1330616492333948928
Yes. Certification proceeds on schedule unless a court grants an injunction blocking it https://twitter.com/LyndzD43/status/1330616517738819585
First level of appeal is "as of right" and has to be heard

Everything past that – en banc review by the full circuit, appeal to SCOTUS, etc – is in the discretion of the applicable court https://twitter.com/cdeangelus/status/1330616693668909058
No https://twitter.com/DavidDaydodge/status/1330616991342792714
The reassignments happen after every new Justice is added

They will have zero impact – none – on anything relating to the election

Donald Trump will no longer be President at 12:00pm on January 20th

Enjoy the Biden Administration! ❤️ https://twitter.com/tacherie/status/1330620537672929281
They can definitely decide it on briefs alone

Certainly possible it's dismissed as moot, we'll see https://twitter.com/matir/status/1330619279033520128
The losers

They file what's called a petition for writ of certiorari

SCOTUS then decides whether it will "grant cert" https://twitter.com/Darkagent1/status/1330618433579388930
The justices meet in private conference, and at least 4 have to agree to hear the case https://twitter.com/EMC2wi/status/1330618345591361540
He certainly could be

It's a very dumb idea, but the Yapping Yam has a number of those https://twitter.com/adschaafsma/status/1330618166335180801
I will die of laughter if that happens https://twitter.com/trogdor8768/status/1330622824483090432
Folks' comparisons to the Threadnought are hilariously accurate

This really is the "Chupp will throw Marchi / Rial / Toye IN JAIL and then DISBAND FUNIMATION! I know because I heard it on YouRube!" variant of not-understanding-how-things-work
Folks' comparisons to the Threadnought are hilariously accurateThis really is the "Chupp will throw Marchi / Rial / Toye IN JAIL and then DISBAND FUNIMATION! I know because I heard it on YouRube!" variant of not-understanding-how-things-work
Folks' comparisons to the Threadnought are hilariously accurateThis really is the "Chupp will throw Marchi / Rial / Toye IN JAIL and then DISBAND FUNIMATION! I know because I heard it on YouRube!" variant of not-understanding-how-things-work
Folks' comparisons to the Threadnought are hilariously accurateThis really is the "Chupp will throw Marchi / Rial / Toye IN JAIL and then DISBAND FUNIMATION! I know because I heard it on YouRube!" variant of not-understanding-how-things-work
You'll be shocked (shocked!) to know we actually talked about the Executive Order that muppet was referencing – EO 13848, "Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Interference in a United States Election" – in the FAQs part of our video ()

Here's the excerpt:
Glad you enjoyed it! 👊 https://twitter.com/eoellrich83/status/1330645917947424768
Spoiler: it can't affect elections, no matter what a MAGAt with a law license tells you

You should listen to experts instead 😉

Enjoy the Biden Administration! ❤️ https://twitter.com/broncodano_/status/1330637459932073985
::shakes Magic 8-Ball::

"Signs point to [Ty Beard]" https://twitter.com/estockbridge/status/1330649089814519808
It's a fundraiser

Or, more accurately, a series of fundraisers

They're gonna bleed their voters dry, then claim "We WuZ rObBeD!!" for 4 years to bleed them even more https://twitter.com/DianaMcBlue/status/1330649248334049280
A lot of the Trumpentariat know that people are too lazy to double-check anything they say

It's an impressive grift tbh. If I didn't have a conscience, I could make a killing https://twitter.com/Gerkuman/status/1330649626681159681
Can confirm https://twitter.com/mseraphimsl/status/1330649539271856128
1️⃣ Of course

2️⃣ Are you surprised? https://twitter.com/tenuto/status/1330651435529236480
Treason has a specific legal definition: "levying War against the[ United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

Using pre-approved legal procedures people are permitted by law to pursue can't be either of those things https://twitter.com/julianvcollazo/status/1330701015549693952
Need to amend the Permanent Apportion Act of 1929, 2 USC §2(a), which reqs a majority of the House + majority of the Senate + President's signature

Dems could have done it back in 2009-11 but focused on healthcare. And tbh most Congresscritters don't want to give up any power https://twitter.com/ykandel/status/1330657009285423105
If they wanted that sort of relief, they'd need to ask the Court of Appeals for it before certification happens – they haven't, so far as I can tell https://twitter.com/WordsfromTony/status/1330723107972198400
Glad you liked it! 👊 https://twitter.com/baxter88205184/status/1330729695567106048
Not necessary

You can, if you had money to spare and wanted to do it, hire a lawyer and move to intervene in the case – but the Biden/Dem lawyers will already be part of it, and the Government lawyers will fight it as well https://twitter.com/KermanJoe/status/1330742396007673856
I genuinely have no clue

I waffle back and forth between thinking "no minimally competent attorney could possibly believe this," and then remembering people like Robert Barnes exist https://twitter.com/jmonkeh80/status/1330899017224626176
Majority of House and majority of Senate have to approve late-appointed electors

Likely result in that scenario is Acting President Nancy Pelosi https://twitter.com/karaokekim2/status/1330914867738521602
Just seems like inviting a malpractice claim to me

Part of why I've had such a good record is I presume everything I'm told is bullsh*t and prepare accordingly https://twitter.com/jhimmibhob/status/1330922745861984257
I'm 100% certain

If someone wants to be less certain, that's up to them https://twitter.com/renewabledoug/status/1330923486844338179
There's nothing for the Supreme Court to do

Any electors appointed after Election Day violate 3 USC §1 and require majority approval of both the House and the Senate to count

If a House majority wants 4 more years of Trump, we get what we deserve tbh https://twitter.com/lrfesq1/status/1330928001836404736
Because I keep getting asked hypotheticals that aren't going to happen, so I explain that *even if they happen* Trump still loses https://twitter.com/Eraserchild1/status/1330926920469413888
Considering I had 3 acquittals in a 36-hour period last week, no https://twitter.com/ibmikenichols/status/1330925926830501888
Electors have to be chosen on 11/3 based on the law as it existed in that state on that day

If it's appointed by the legislature instead, that gets violated b/c the law required the slate to be awarded to the winner of the popular vote https://twitter.com/lrfesq1/status/1330933331664334848
Neither slate has been appointed in Michigan yet

Both slates have been named, and those names provided to the elections administrators months ago, but neither is appointed as the actual electors until the results are certified and the electors notified to meet on 12/14 https://twitter.com/lrfesq1/status/1330933916509773824
Because the state legislature choosing – as opposed to the voters choosing – is changing the rules after Election Day :) https://twitter.com/lrfesq1/status/1330934798282485762
It might work in other areas of law, but in both criminal defense and in business litigation, it's just a reality that clients lie and you typically won't find out until it's too late – so even if you believe them, you have to prepare as if you're being fed bullsh*t https://twitter.com/IBMikeNichols/status/1330934587720159237
State legislatures have the power to do so under 3 USC §2 and the Supreme Court's 1892 ruling in McPherson v. Blacker

But if they do, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate have to approve the votes under 3 USC §15. That will not happen. https://twitter.com/sleepyzomby/status/1330935801845342210
Everything before the "The electoral 'reactor'" header is accurate

Everything after it is codswallop https://twitter.com/marjukahm/status/1330938286638915584
Tough to get rage clicks and shares with "No matter what our guy tries, he loses"

The key difference between them and me is that my paycheck isn't dependent on my notoriety. Street pharmacists are reading lawyers' tweets or thinkpieces https://twitter.com/marjukahm/status/1330941068926357504
You are wrong, in several different respects

An onion of wrongness if you will

There is only 1-vote-per-state if there is a contingent election under the 12th Amendment. Which has nothing to do with the process of counting electoral votes. https://twitter.com/kokoyumyum/status/1331049684601876480
1 video every 4 years 😉 https://twitter.com/KaylaShanai/status/1330648952367173638
Yes

Federal statute of limitations is 5 years, so they'll need to get started right after Biden is sworn in (assuming there are no pardons) https://twitter.com/bratcherlydia/status/1331128021399478277
Oh I couldn't possibly guess 😂 Had you told me back in 2016 that the 2020 one would be an explainer on electoral vote esoterica I'd have thought you were crazy https://twitter.com/Moonster/status/1331116164878004224
No. It's just one of several desperation plays that aren't going to do anything but convince the rubes to Trust The Plan (and give them money) https://twitter.com/thiswebsiteisso/status/1331253459048337409
Did I tell y'all we made the front page of Digg? 😬
Now that everyone knows the PA judge's order isn't going to do anything, I'm re-pinning the YouTube video so folks can find it

The new lawsuits filed today aren't going to do anything either. Breathe, and ignore the bad legal takes
Nothing. Executive Orders are limited in what they can do, and can't override a statute or the Constitution

Trump's term ends on 1/20 at noon. There is no action he can take that gets around the hard cutoff of his power. https://twitter.com/elcheeguar/status/1331963821636923392
If 218 Congressmen and 50+1 Senators agree to it, sure

Congress has always been the final arbiter of who becomes President, since the first Congress in 1788

See, e.g., Hayes-Tilden in 1876. Tilden won the popular vote and was up 20+ EVs; Hayes became President https://twitter.com/davideceremigna/status/1332064635504238603
Correct. There is no circumstance this time – short of tanks in the street for an armed overthrow of the Government – where an R becomes President https://twitter.com/gsgsolis16/status/1332069170893254661
The people who talk about loving an armed overthrow stop loving it when others shoot back

And there are a *lot* of armed Communists and minorities out there https://twitter.com/ArmaVerus/status/1332072768989433859
It's not like they're able to reliably use more than 2 at any one time anyway https://twitter.com/foodsevelt/status/1332085142718967808
There's nothing a court can annul; Congress's power over the counting of electoral votes is supreme

SCOTUS says "Trump wins," Congress responds "get f*cked" and that's that https://twitter.com/days_ph/status/1332085044865687552
I'm not forgetting 2001 though. Or 2017.

Congress's power over electoral votes is supreme. Period. https://twitter.com/isaac32767/status/1332087551545331712
Would *not* want the recoil on one of those in that location 😂 https://twitter.com/jasonjcohen/status/1332087707779145729
➡️ There were no "illegal procedures regarding absentee ballots"

➡️ No significant number of ballots will be thrown out

➡️ There was no significant fraud https://twitter.com/days_ph/status/1332093098160058369
This is a painfully stupid take and I truly don't know why people keep repeating it

When someone breaks the law, government actors with more power take action to address it

The same thing happens in the presidential election context; Congress is the police + prosecutor + court https://twitter.com/revjackwagon/status/1332087406506471425
In terms of the appointment of the electors, yes that could conceivably work

But even if it did, it would violate 3 USC §1 – Congress's rules on when electors have to be chosen – and the electors would have to be approved by a majority of both chambers https://twitter.com/rahaswagata/status/1332095440783765504
Philosophically, I agree with you

*As the case law currently exists today,* that's probably not true. SCOTUS in McPherson v Blacker functionally held that the legislature's power is absolute and can never be diluted; it could, if it wanted, take that power back at any time https://twitter.com/deejaymcguire/status/1332097231978176514
Possibly, but I think the legal analysis would focus more on whether the state made a "choice" under 3 USC §1-2

Key point though is that – regardless of any court rulings – Congress has ultimate final control https://twitter.com/willmusic4food/status/1332100373591552001
This take is no less stupid than your earlier one

The only times people get away with breaking the law is when they either (1) avoid detection or (2) the Government doesn't care

Neither of those apply to a Republican being President after a Democrat won https://twitter.com/revjackwagon/status/1332099919553949697
SCOTUS in McPherson held that the power to appoint electors belonged exclusively to state legislatures, and they can exercise it whenever they see fit – even after an election

Here, e.g., they favorably quote a report from the 43rd Congress compiling the history of electors: https://twitter.com/RahaSwagata/status/1332120025000394753
You genuinely think a majority of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives – "the Government" in this metaphor – is going to not care about a Republican getting inaugurated?

If so, it explains why your earlier takes were so dumb https://twitter.com/revjackwagon/status/1332103347038511105
You're not making the point you think you're making

Try again. Please be less stupid this 4th time. https://twitter.com/revjackwagon/status/1332162899201167368
Yep

It's not going to *work* – he'd still have to get past a majority of the House – but that's their theory on how to make it happen https://twitter.com/hrox901/status/1332161482478538753
No https://twitter.com/gsgsolis16/status/1332166065846185988
Clearly I've been compromised by The Deep State https://twitter.com/days_ph/status/1332167907158081541
I suppose it depends on how loosely you define "expert"

Among the subset of lawyers who understand election law, I'm not aware of any of them who think a legislature can appoint electors after 11/3 without getting the blessing of Congress for violating 3 USC §1 https://twitter.com/zygoldya/status/1332166842954231810
There are 2 slightly different questions at issue:

1️⃣ Does a state legislature have the power to say "f*ck the vote" and appoint legislators whenever they want?

Based on the precedent that currently exists, the answer is yes...

1/ https://twitter.com/zygoldya/status/1332172626106732544
...though there is ample disagreement among experts over whether that precedent is still "good law" / valid, vs whether it should be overturned (either because it was wrongly decided at the time or because we've moved on as a country to election by popular vote)

2/
@zygoldya
2️⃣ If we assume states have the power to appoint electors for whoever they want, regardless of who won the vote, will those electoral votes be counted if either the House or the Senate oppose it?

Here, the experts are pretty uniform that the answer is "no"

3/
@zygoldya
We discuss that hypothetical and the laws relating to it as part of the YouTube video I put out

TL;DR: there is no scenario where a Republican becomes President unless there's an armed overthrow of the Government

4/4
@zygoldya
Nah, because it would be like finding out Lincoln wasn't shot but rather gored to death by a sparkling unicorn that shat rainbows and Skittles – sure it's a disconcerting sight, but clearly they have really good hallucinogens in this timeline https://twitter.com/miguelnouhan/status/1332178386156986369
Never mind, I thought it was a serious question but was instead one of those losers who copy/paste the same tweet to everyone they can

Reported as spam and blocked
Never mind, I thought it was a serious question but was instead one of those losers who copy/paste the same tweet to everyone they can Reported as spam and blocked
Never mind, I thought it was a serious question but was instead one of those losers who copy/paste the same tweet to everyone they can Reported as spam and blocked
No https://twitter.com/raul_amderlaine/status/1332179384296484866
No

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" https://twitter.com/hell_kitty/status/1332185455094185984
Is it possible to make a thing that's totally pointless even more pointless?

They were going on about Dominion machines in Philadelphia too – a city that didn't use them https://twitter.com/mdurkin86/status/1332186815982424065
"Laches" is basically the legal term for "you can't sleep on your rights and then try to assert them late"

In the elections context, it's like suing to retroactively change the rules of an election after the election is over, rather than suing before voting started https://twitter.com/kris_lovaas/status/1332190148247891973
Huh. I was not aware this letter existed, very cool https://twitter.com/microtherion/status/1332264342444773376
I don't understand the question. Only a legislature can pass legislation https://twitter.com/Gerkuman/status/1332247161283760128
Got it. This is basically the McPherson v Blacker issue

See here:
➡️ https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1332159921325006852

And here:
➡️ https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1332176090887020544

and the 3 tweets after it

However...

1/ https://twitter.com/gerkuman/status/1332338790099247104
The grant of power to states over elections by Article II Section 1 only applies to electing a President; the grant under Article I Section 4 applies to Congresscritters, but hasn't been subject to the same precedents

And it doesn't apply to state offices at all

2/
@Gerkuman
So there's ample argument to be made that how the apparatus of government deals with unexpected circumstances – executives wielding delegated authority from the legislature, court rulings, etc – are constitutional and that won't change

3/3
@Gerkuman
It's a politician looking for asspats. It's not going to happen https://twitter.com/mdurkin86/status/1332391728234582017
No one wants Acting President Nancy Pelosi

And that's how you end up with Acting President Nancy Pelosi https://twitter.com/stevanbolton/status/1332395294126837760
I account for that possibility in the video 😂

May as well make Joe Biden speaker tbh https://twitter.com/LawyerDave1/status/1332401926068006912
This is gibberish

The rules of succession are clear, and don't need norms to function https://twitter.com/AaronFown/status/1332402730044973056
All the "But muh NORMZ!!1" hand-wringing the past 4 years has been beyond tiresome
https://twitter.com/blackdoom1991/status/1332405239308140544
Norms are courtesies for convenience

They're not legislated because they can't be codified both (1) with sufficient specificity and (2) while respecting separation of powers

The country functioned fine before they existed and can survive deviations from them
Without *the rule of law* – which does not require norms and can exist in their absence – your alternative is tanks in the streets

And if we're truly at that point, norms don't matter. Because war. Lulz.
The law requires probable cause a crime was committed to prosecute

We don't prosecute political enemies because they generally don't commit prosecutable crimes

Try again https://twitter.com/QuixxxCap/status/1332408615270019073
Generally agreed, but a counterpoint: even then the 22nd Amendment was not worded with adequate specificity, because it prohibits running more than 2x but is silent on whether a term-limited President can serve via succession https://twitter.com/pdwschmidt/status/1332410853166116864
Not without a constitutional amendment

Article III limits federal court jurisdiction to "cases and controversies"; it cannot issue advisory opinions

In contrast, several states expressly gave their courts that power; we could give it to SCOTUS via amendment https://twitter.com/stevanbolton/status/1332408711080415232
https://twitter.com/bykerseven/status/1332407773389328393
I'll leave that to more talented people, like the lady who did the Rule 11 TikTok video https://twitter.com/daveanthony/status/1332414392441311232
Nope. See Muskrat v US, 219 US 346 (1911) (see also Chief Justice John Jay's letter to George Washington on advisory opinions) https://twitter.com/johnmacwhat/status/1332413539093458945
The peskiness of it is very much up for debate 😂

But yes, felonious / "infamous" crimes need indictments by grand juries https://twitter.com/kestrel607/status/1332414746386165761
There were 2 prongs to my statement, both of which have to be true

I also never claimed to be particularly clever. Hence why I don't work myself into a tizzy over things that will only happen in clever lawyers' fever dreams https://twitter.com/unreliablenarr6/status/1332418517652660229
Philosophically, yes IMO

But from the standpoint of precedent, no b/c they're dealing with different sources of power (Article I Section 4 vs Article II Section 1)

My view is that McPherson is no longer "good law" in part because of rulings like Smiley. But SCOTUS hasn't agreed https://twitter.com/kidcreole3/status/1332452226405642243
I'm not worried about it. We've had resolutions introduced to create a state-specific currency, a state religion, etc – lots of dumb legislation gets introduced and never goes anywhere https://twitter.com/bittergertrude/status/1332508770971176963
Don't know, didn't read it. It's the "explanation" for the injunction that didn't enjoin anything important that was stayed on appeal and is going to get reversed, so it doesn't really matter https://twitter.com/marjukahm/status/1332701160042504193
As long as they want. "The horse has already left the barn," as the saying goes – the electors have already been appointed https://twitter.com/willisiscray/status/1332706201319075840
This is the September @FareedZakaria video I mentioned in my YouTube vid – he totally ignores huge chunks of applicable law and panics people for nothing

It's horsesh*t on par with Van Jones, and whoever wrote the script for him should be fired https://twitter.com/yashaswitv/status/1332699910613790723
January 6th, after the EVs are counted and Biden is announced to be the winner https://twitter.com/johnshort85/status/1332708147593687041
A judge can rule whenever they want. The safe harbor date just means electors chosen through the state's legal processes as of Election Day are presumed valid

Anything different post-12/8 needs approval of the House and the Senate https://twitter.com/jacksoncvaret/status/1332707999375388677
No https://twitter.com/ellis41496119/status/1332689645537091586
"Wanting to get to SCOTUS faster" is not a logical explanation for ruling against someone on every possible ground on which they could be ruled against, making it trivially easy for SCOTUS to deny certiorari or affirm outright 🤪 https://twitter.com/robmstuart/status/1332666602073051137
Article I Section 5 makes each chamber the judge of its members' qualifications to hold office. One of those is ensuring members-elect were elected by the people of their district.

Republicans claim fraud. Challenge their elections, each is referred to Comm on Admin, meet on 1/7 https://twitter.com/RyanPedvin/status/1332612067501563906
Depends on the state. If it's a state with a faithless elector prohibition, the vote is annulled and a new elector is put in their place.

If a state without such a law, the vote is cast but subject to written objection in Congress under 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/giannirivera69/status/1332585948194942978
Correct

And electoral votes are public, so we'll know on 12/14 – at which point Dems can just prep the objections to swearing in any Republicans, in anticipation of a Dem-only contingent election https://twitter.com/darkagent1/status/1332714015102038016
Exactly right https://twitter.com/glengreezy/status/1332719143670472704
1️⃣ Federal certification was perfected; the things the court purported to stop were post-certification acts not related to certification

2️⃣ Even that order, which didn't do anything, was stayed pending appeal. So those acts have since been done as well https://twitter.com/galt1776/status/1332730233171156996
It's not purposeful, it's incompetence 😂

No, there is absolutely no chance any of these cases go anywhere. Even with a SCOTUS ruling. 0.00% https://twitter.com/ethicaiskeptic/status/1332727685731266561
Why would anyone file a "countersuit"?

Biden won. Winners don't need to file countersuits. Because when the loser's lawsuits get dismissed, the winner gets sworn in. https://twitter.com/robmstuart/status/1332740653047050243
Y'all have some very bizarre perceptions about how the legal system works 😂🤦‍♂️
I was thinking more like "House makes Obama the Speaker even though he's not a member of Congress; counting of electoral votes deadlocks past January 20th; Speaker becomes Acting President" https://twitter.com/jimhenleymusic/status/1332751402448334852
If they put it in writing, signed by a member of each chamber, yes that qualifies as a bona fide objection

The end result of not resolving the objection is Acting President Nancy Pelosi, so it will either be resolved in Biden's favor or Ds intentionally leave it unresolved https://twitter.com/jwahl123/status/1332751348895461379
If they're gonna object to GA, they'll object to other states too. No sense in half-assing it https://twitter.com/johnshort85/status/1332761301362372612
Any member of any state, you can mix and match https://twitter.com/beth_amell/status/1332772815930462208
The lawsuit has no merits, and is not going to accomplish anything

Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong https://twitter.com/kevinqews/status/1332771415205011460
Figure out what the caucus wants to do

They'll know on 12/14 if that's a remotely possible outcome; that leaves 3 weeks to strategize https://twitter.com/seifersythe/status/1332769726666338305
No https://twitter.com/whois_josh/status/1332775371599720448
Nope

Appellate courts only get to consider "the record on appeal" – evidence from the trial courts https://twitter.com/baginskiaimee/status/1332777283346518016
The Fred Eschelman stuff is *amazing* 😂😂 https://twitter.com/richardsterling/status/1332776587515883528
In theory, all election lawsuits potentially impacting federal elections can end at SCOTUS; likewise for everything arguing federal equal protection violations

I doubt it will happen though https://twitter.com/rlcarr/status/1332776139446693888
Not even a little bit https://twitter.com/sdcowboy85/status/1332775616194768897
Correct. An alternative universe where the rubes can stay aggrieved and the puppeteers can keep grifting their social security checks https://twitter.com/jjcdotexe/status/1332792280365883393
Yes, on the question of whether the dismissal was proper

But if the dismissals weren't proper, the remedy is vacant and remand for actual trial with actual evidence

SCOTUS isn't going to order Trump get sworn in come January, which seems to be the MAGA theory of litigation https://twitter.com/jmg_esq/status/1332791044006686723
Yes, it's the video from September that I mentioned in my YouTube video

It's both silly and wrong. So not really surprising @JennaEllisEsq is promoting it https://twitter.com/illustratordad/status/1332790836204105728
The thread reads like someone who doesn't understand how things work and is easily convinced by bullsh*t https://twitter.com/randyla08991031/status/1332799909972631553
The only lawyer among us who is both competent and masochistic enough to make it through the whole filing is @questauthority – he has an excellent thread on it https://twitter.com/kimeralism/status/1332803468701134849
You can follow @greg_doucette.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.