It’s interesting to see the likes of David Frum recognize the imbalance in the media after all these years. People who read this blog have seen this for about three decades now. A thread:
“Donald Trump tried to overthrow an election by violence.”
That’s old news, we already reported that.
“As president, Donald Trump directed tens of millions of tax dollars to his own pockets.”
Old news.
“Russian intelligence helped elect Trump by illegal means. Trump welcomed the help.”
Russia, Russia.
“He was proven in court to have raped a woman.”
Civil proceeding, not criminal – and sexual assault, not rape. Besides … old news.
(cont’d)
“Two dozen other women say Trump attacked them. There’s literally a recording of him boasting about it!”
Old news, we litigated all that in 2016.
“There’s new news just unsealed about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein!”
“You don’t have to focus on the sex stuff. There’s more evidence that Trump gave a seat in cabinet to a man for no good reason other than to thank him for the Epstein cover-up.”
Arrant speculation. Also old news.
(cont’d)
“It’s not arrant speculation that Trump’s family falsified receipts to cheat the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.”
Old news.
“It’ll feel like new news because you ignored it at the time.”
We gave it a day.
“Trump used the same trick – false records – in all his many civil frauds, and also in the hush-money case that got him convicted of 34 felony counts by a jury!”
Complicated technicalities, you’re boring me.
(cont’d)
“You want simple? Someone bravely defied a non-disclosure agreement to go on the record that Trump used the most vicious racial slurs on the set of The Apprentice.”
Doubtful source.
“The ‘suckers and losers’ quote comes from an impeccable source.”
Old news.
“But Trump denied the ‘suckers and losers’ quote only last week during the nationally televised presidential debate. He lied to the whole country!”
Not our job to fact-check every word he says.
“But you personally know it to be a lie.”
Maybe we do, maybe we don’t.
“Okay, look, let’s do it your way. What does interest you?”
Indications of cognitive decline.
“We’ve got millions of examples of Trump obviously off his rocker.”
Right – he says crazy things all the time. Not news.
(cont’d)
“Are you telling me that the more often a candidate for president says addled, senile, crazy things – the less newsy it is?”
Not exactly. We also need a lot of background quotes about how his party is worried. If the party is cool with his dementia, we’re cool with it.
“These rules don’t seem on the level.”
We’re not the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court isn’t on the level either.”
Oh, now you’re undermining confidence in our most sacred institutions. How is that different from Trump?
“Oh for God’s sake, the wives of two justices supported – and one conspired in – Trump’s Big Lie. I don’t understand why you sat on the story for two years.
Leave families out of it.
“Biden’s family too?”
We have to cover that, Trump’s made a campaign issue of it.
“I give up. Talk to me like I’m eight years old. How the hell do you explain what you’re doing?”
We have to report equal numbers of bad things about each side.
“But what if there aren’t equal numbers?”
That’s our job, to make sure that there are.
END
Yep.
And now we’re going to see the next chapter which is just as predictable:
The transition from Biden to the Harris "cover up" is in full effect. Despite the fact that it's absurd considering the administration's obvious competence at governance, she should have seen that Biden was ageing and called a press conference to announce it? It's ridiculous. https://t.co/eXWpW8fl1K
The Trump campaign is keeping a tight rein on the Christian right and the Christian right doesn’t like it
One of the more obvious signs that the Republican Party had devolved into a cult of personality was in 2020 when they decided to abandon writing a party platform in advance of the election and simply said that whatever Donald Trump wanted to do was fine with them. I don’t think that’s ever happened before but in the MAGA-fied GOP that sort of thing certainly isn’t unusual. However, they’re going back to the tradition of writing an actual platform this year and it’s causing some unexpected heartburn.
Just because party members want a platform doesn’t mean Trump does. But he and his campaign have acquiesced within certain parameters. The NY Times reported that Trump’s campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles sent a memo ordering the platform committee demanding they pare down the document “to ensure our policy commitments to the American people are clear, concise and easily digestible” because “publishing an unnecessarily verbose treatise will provide more fuel for our opponent’s fire of misinformation and misrepresentation to voters.” They made it clear that while it’s probably ok for the minions to have their little ideological exercise, it’s still Dear Leader’s “principled and popular vision for America’s future.”
There is some grumbling in the ranks about this, mostly from anti-abortion activists who want to ensure that the party doesn’t deviate from its long held goal of banning abortion nationwide despite Trump’s attempts to hide those intentions with his fatuous declarations that by overturning Roe v wade, he “sent it back to the states which is what everyone on both sides always wanted.” One staunch anti-abortion activist Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, appeared on CNN earlier and made it clear that she believes the platform should remain what it has been for 40 years.
For years, the GOP platform has endorsed a federal abortion ban, but that could change to reflect former President Donald Trump's views. @marjoriesba tells me on @InsidePolitics her message is: "Don't mess with what's been there for 40 years." pic.twitter.com/fd8i4gby00
As she points out, the campaign actually blocked anti-abortion delegates from participating and it’s not sitting well with that faction of the party. Politico reports:
According to the affidavits prepared for the RNC’s committee on contests, obtained by POLITICO, the Trump campaign and RNC staffers held a separate vote to elect a different slate of platform committee delegates.
The documents allege that at least two GOP staffers who were formerly employed by the Trump campaign “[pressured] them to vote against” Ryggs and Connelly and tried to “circumvent” the official vote.
Gosh, I wonder where they ever got the idea to do something like that?
Apparently, even big guns like Ralph Reed, founder and chair of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, are very concerned that this could demobilize the Evangelical vote. He told Politico:
I would strongly urge the leadership of the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign to proceed with great caution on the platform and avoid doing anything that would discourage or in any way deflate the enthusiasm of pro-life and evangelical vote. Right now, sitting here today, they are prepared to crawl across broken glass, to do everything in their power to see President Trump re-elected. I don’t want to see anything happen that would change that current dynamic.
A similar warning came from Tim Chapman, incoming president of the social conservative group Advancing American Freedom, who told ABC News “The talk of changing the Republican party’s pro-life platform is deeply concerning for pro-life Americans across the country,”
Reed is now leading what he calls the “Platform Integrity Project” in which he’s calling on the faithful to weigh in and demand that the platform holds to its hard-line position. The New York Times reported that a coalition of 10 conservative groups, including the Family Research Council , Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Concerned Women for America have urged Trump to “make clear that you do not intend to weaken the pro-life plank” while also praising him as “the most pro-life president in American history.”
And it isn’t just obfuscating the party’s radical position on abortion that has them upset. They don’t want anyone touching their other extremist policies either. As LGBTQ Nation reported, Suzanne Bowdey of the Family Research Council’s site is worried that the slimmed down platform might not include their opposition to “extremism like same-sex marriage and transgenderism which is currently part of a long section “that accuses the Supreme Court of “rob[bing] 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” They are all in on outlawing IVF and using the Comstock Law to ban contraception and pornography as well.
Semafor reported that the campaign will attempt to keep this all under wraps by moving the writing of the platform behind closed doors, another break from tradition. Both parties have always written their platforms publicly for the delegates to see and offer input and they’ve allowed the press to have access and report on it. The meetings are usually aired on CSPAN. The Democrats plan to do that at their convention in August as they always have but the prospect of any kind of argument with the Trump campaign, or one suspects, the public airing of the campaign swatting down members of the rank and file will not be tolerated at the RNC. Keep the family squabbles behind closed doors at all costs. Their leader wants a united front.
None of this is to say that Trump has actually moderated his views. The truth is that he doesn’t really care about any of this culture war stuff but he is worried that overturning Roe v Wade is going to hurt him. He says at his rallies and in speeches, “you have to follow your heart but we need to win elections” which translates to, “don’t worry, I’m just saying this to win over voters, I’ll do whatever you want once I win the election.”
These folks shouldn’t worry too much. The men in charge of the Platform Committee are dedicated, far right extremists. One of them is Platform 2025’s top drafter, the Christian nationalist Russ Vought, who I wrote about here. Another is Trump loyalist Ed Martin, a longtime right wing operative who is best remembered in the general public for being fired by CNN for racist comments. As it happens CNN’s Kfiles turned up some footage of Martin that should come as a huge relief to the Christian right organizations. He’s so extreme that he wants to jail women who get abortions and ban the procedure with no exceptions:
NEW: Our report tonight on Ed Martin, who is helping craft the Republican Party's platform at the convention and has raised jailing women who get abortions and advocated for a national ban without exceptions for rape or incest. pic.twitter.com/cBzElHhLyr
These men are hard core Christian Nationalists who are involved in the planning for a second Trump term. And they are very practical about doing whatever it takes to regain power for that purpose. A little fudging on the platform, letting the Republicans pretend to the mainstream press that they aren’t radical in order to win over some of those valuable suburban moms is just the price of doing business. And frankly, political professionals like Ralph Reed and Marjorie Dannenfelser know that as well. They’re just playing the roles of anti-abortion activists for their flocks to show that they haven’t given up the fight. I’m confident they’ll all be on board the Trump train with full enthusiasm when the time comes.
— Editorial & Political Cartoons (@EandPCartoons) July 4, 2024
I’d not seen this clip before. Not sure I want to remember it now.
It's a cult. I lived in rural North Dakota for 4 years for the entirety of Trump's presidency. This is not an exaggeration from Family Guy. pic.twitter.com/Ahm03YHRDC
Casanova Frankenstein:It’s so easy to get the best of people when they care about each other. Which is why evil will always have the edge. You good guys are always so bound by the rules (throws switch & electrocutes the Frat Boys). You see, I kill my own men. And lucky me…I get the girl. (Mystery Men, 1999.)
A reliable feature of our politics is that people from the center to the left, including the press, direct more fire at Democrats than at Republicans. It’s not that Democrats deserve more criticism. It’s that the aggrieved see more chance that their complaints will leave a mark on the left than on conservatives better armored against them. If shamelessness is conservatives’ superpower, giving a damn is the left’s kryptonite.
Protecting our freedoms matters. Improving other people’s lives matters. A more perfect union matters. Equal justice under law matters. Just not to our opponents, if ever it was.
Joe Biden’s terrible debate performance bleeds, so it leads. The media feeding frenzy is dispiriting in the extreme. Some Democrats tearing out their hair in panic and others circling the wagons around Biden makes quite a messy show. Pixels and ink, eyeballs and clicks.
And while the piranhas chomp away at the party that actually gives a damn about salvaging a country once aspirationally dedicated to the proposition that all men persons are created equal, supposed Real Americans™ who never accepted that proposition (except as a marketing slogan) march towards reformatting the United States as a monarchy similar to the one we declared ourselves free of on July 4, 1776.
The cruelest irony is that it was a mad king that drove our 18th century forebears to separate from England. Now, MAGA Republicans want not just to restore the monarchy, but with a 21st century mad king. A poor person’s idea of a rich person, a foolish person’s idea of a smart one.
I keep returning to something Matt Taibbi (in his snappier days) wrote about in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse about Americans’ inability to muster outrage at the people who really screwed them over. We kiss up and kick down. No matter how many indictments, convictions and scandals, no matter how many lies told or people cheated, no matter that the MAGA GOP means to end the American experiment by crowning a king who can do no wrong:
It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish… can’t be mad at AIG, can’t be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it’s struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It’s really weird stuff. And bound to get weirder, I imagine, as this crisis gets worse and more complicated.
That was 2009. It has gotten weirder. A large swath of a country birthed by the Enlightenment now rejects learning, science, and even honesty and common decency. In Jesus’ name, even. Democracy is too hard, too demanding. Being a subject is easier.
Behold, the MAGA mad king.
Warnings not to normalize his ravings fell on deaf ears. Those with the loudest voices in our democratic polity gave up broadcasting how depraved and insane Donald Trump is and always was. Easier to fire arrows at targets on the left who might actually feel their sting and bleed real blood.
As the super villain from Mystery Men (1999) noted, it’s always easier to get the better of people who actually care about one another.
Axios has been one of the most hysterical of all media outlets over Joe Biden’s debate debacle so I’m loathe to put much stock in their gossip reporting. However, this is actually informative:
If President Biden steps aside, Vice President Harris would be almost impossible to beat for the nomination, thanks to endorsements, money, optics and 2028 politics, top officials tell us.
All Harris needs is Biden’s backing. If she gets it, the Obamas and Clintons likely would follow, making any challenge an affront to the sitting president and two former presidents.
If she gets Biden’s endorsement, the only way a top-tier Democrat could challenge her would be to risk their future by saying “not your turn” to the first woman vice president, first Black American vice president and first South Asian vice president.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the House Jan. 6 committee, told Axios’ Hans Nichols that Harris is “incredibly strong … You can’t say Biden has done a good job without saying she’s done a good job.” For her to be pushed aside from consideration, he said, “would be the kiss of death for the party.”
Of course, all this may take a while. Biden stunned — and annoyed — lots of powerful Democrats on Wednesday by digging in ahead of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (now being shown as a prime-time special at 8pm ET Friday).
I think you have to give the man a little bit of time to absorb what’s happened. He’s human. He’s probably terribly embarrassed. Give him a minute.
They report that Biden and his advisers don’t think much of Harris but that sounds like more gossip to me. Maybe they don’t. But it’s irrelevant. She’s polling better than Biden and any other candidates so with this short window, it would very likely be her, as I’ve been saying since last Friday.
I agree with this analysis of the likely best next steps:
Biden’s private worries wouldn’t necessarily keep him from endorsing her publicly. It’s called politics. Biden would push to pair her with a moderate Democratic governor like Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro (51), Kentucky’s Andy Beshear (age 46), North Carolina’s Roy Cooper (67) or Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker (59).
We gamed out potential scenarios with some of the nation’s most experienced Democratic operatives. Most feel strongly that for both political and practical reasons, Harris looks all but unbeatable.
If Biden “got there” on deciding to throw in the towel, top Democrats expect he would announce he was endorsing Harris — his running mate in 2020, and partner in governing for the past three years. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during her briefing Wednesday that one of the reasons Biden picked her back in 2020 “is because she is, indeed, the future of the party.”
One reason to go that route is to avoid the mayhem of a wide-open convention in Chicago beginning Aug. 19. That would take Democrats’ focus off Trump while they scrambled, knifed and preened.
Harris as nominee, or perhaps president, would become part of Biden’s legacy, which matters a lot to him — a proud, stubborn man who’s been in public life for 50+ years.
Then there’s the practicality: If you’re eyeing the 2028 nomination, you’re thinking about the base. Do you really want to torpedo Harris’ chance to become the first woman president of color? What are your real chances of defeating Harris and her formidable apparatus (White House, DNC, Biden-Harris campaign) when you’re less well-known nationally than she is — then beating the Trump machine, with its huge head start, in the 75 days between the Democratic convention and Election Day?
I don’t think there’s enough time to do anything else and the reality is that the Democratic base has something to say about this too.
They gamed out some of the other possibilities being mentioned:
Let’s say Biden didn’t endorse, or Democratic leaders insisted on a process. At the highest levels of the party, there’s talk of a series of, say, five regional debates before the convention. The candidates would debate live before the Democratic delegates, gathered in cities throughout the country (e.g., New York, Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and L.A.).
It’d all be televised. Then when the convention opened in Chicago on Aug. 19, delegates would have seen the field in action. There are a few problems with this, including determining who gets to debate. And you’d be trying to do something really complicated, in basically no time. “We can’t organize a two-car parade at the moment,” said one veteran of presidential campaigns who’s knee-deep in possible Plan Bs.
What if Biden gets out too late for that, or the debates never come together? Then you could have an old-school frenzy in Chicago of candidates racing among delegation breakfasts to make their case.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a Biden campaign co-chair, said in response to a question from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that he’d support Harris if Biden dropped out, although he wants the ticket to continue to be Biden-Harris. “This party should not, in any way, do any thing to work around Ms. Harris,” he said. “We should do everything we can to bolster her.”
On CNN on Wednesday, Clyburn said you “can actually fashion the process that’s already in place to make it a mini-primary, and I would support that. … I think that Kamala Harris would acquit herself very well in that kind of a process. But then it would be fair to everybody.” A Clyburn aide later clarified that he was just explaining the existing process.
Again, I think the convention needs to be very buttoned up because outside are going to be quite a few protesters. They need to keep the circus under control.
Clyburn has heavyweight clout with Black constituents and has been pretty clear on the fact that he’s behind Harris if Biden drops — and he seems to be warming to that idea. He did say he thought there could be a “mini-primary” but I’d guess that he’s just saying that to not appear to be putting his thumb too hard on the scale for her. She’s obviously his choice.
They say that some “party elders” think replacing Biden would electrify the Democratic base and that may be right. I don’t know. But it would probably stop the bleeding. And as the tiresome Village elder Jonathan Martin tweeted out today, Trump’s inevitable racist and sexist attacks on Harris might very well turn off some of those swing voters, especially women so there is that grotesque up side.
And:
Top Democrats tell us that after a possibly contentious public fight, they’d end with a ticket featuring two faces much younger than Trump (78), probably a man and a woman, getting massive free public attention — then a surge of donations.
One would hope.
The math is simple for a new ticket to win: Both parties agree the winner will be decided by a few hundred thousand voters in seven states — Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
Trump enjoys a small lead in most. So the new ticket would merely need to keep Biden’s vote, plus pick up a few undecided voters or current Trump-leaning “double haters” — voters who dislike both, but will hold their nose and pick one. Do this, Democrats win.
Given the amount of convention and post-convention free media — the world would be transfixed by this spectacle — the new ticket would simply need enough money to flood those seven states for 10-ish weeks. That’s a lifetime in politics.
Is this for real? Who knows? It’s risky either way. But with the Biden chum in the water the media sharks aren’t going to let up . The right’s been fairly quiet but the minute they see that Biden’s staying in they will unleash hell. I worry. A lot.
There are two huge elections taking place in Europe right now, one in the UK and one in France. Most of you no doubt understand that various electoral systems but it is rather complicated, especially in France, so in case you have some questions I thought I’d direct you to an excellent guide by Daniel Nichanian at Bolts.com. Here’s the intro:
Two major elections are taking place this week, within days of one another. The United Kingdom votes on Thursday to elect its members of parliament for the first time since 2019. France then heads to the polls on Sunday for runoffs that will decide the make-up of its National Assembly.
The timing of both elections are major surprises. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called them in late May, while French President Emmanuel Macron shocked his country on June 9 by announcing that he was dissolving the National Assembly and organizing elections within a month.
Each election will decide who governs the country, using rules that often differ from U.S. norms. The modes of government vary, of course, but so do policies, gerrymandering, voter registration, voting in or after prison, voter ID, tabulations, and much more.
At Bolts, we’re always interested in varying models of democracy, and what lessons they teach us. And we suspected that our readers have many questions as well.
As part of our ongoing “Ask Bolts” series, we asked you to let us know what you’re thinking—and you delivered. We narrowed down your questions (with great difficulty) and had fun answering them below.
We’ve organized your questions under five themes—explore at your leisure:
Read on to learn how people vote in France and the U.K., why snap elections are a thing, what constraints exist on gerrymandering, and much more.
It looks pretty good for labor in the UK where people are sick of the Tories after 14 years and have deep regrets about Brexit. (Who could have predicted?) France is a lot more dicey with the far right poised to potentially take over and the best case probably being a hung parliament. Check out the Bolts piece for more info.
Gödel’s Loophole is a supposed “inner contradiction” in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopherKurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit the American democracy to be legally turned into a dictatorship. Gödel told his friend Oskar Morgenstern about the existence of the flaw and Morgenstern told Albert Einstein about it at the time, but Morgenstern, in his recollection of the incident in 1971, never mentioned the exact problem as Gödel saw it. This has led to speculation about the precise nature of what has come to be called “Gödel’s Loophole”. It has been called “one of the great unsolved problems of constitutional law” by F. E. Guerra-Pujol.
When Gödel was studying to take his American citizenship test in 1947, he came across what he described as an “inner contradiction” in the U.S. Constitution. At the time, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was good friends with Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern. Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the United States to legally become a fascist state. Morgenstern tried to convince Gödel that this was very unlikely to happen, but Gödel remained very concerned about it. He was an Austrian by birth and, having lived through the 1933 coup d’état and escaped from Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, had reason to be concerned about living in a fascist dictatorship. Morgenstern had a number of discussions with Gödel about his concerns, and also told Einstein about them.
When the date of the examination came some months later, Gödel was being driven to the courthouse in Trenton, New Jersey, by Morgenstern and Einstein, who were to be his witnesses. Both had already taken the citizenship test and become naturalized United States citizens. At one point during the drive, Einstein, in the front seat, turned to Gödel in the back and asked – knowing about Gödel’s concerns – “Now, Gödel, are you really well prepared for this examination?” According to Morgenstern, Einstein’s purpose in asking this was to rattle Gödel, whose reaction amused him.
At the courthouse, witnesses would normally remain outside of the room during a citizenship examination, but because Einstein, a celebrity, was involved, and because the judge, Phillip Forman, had administered the oath of citizenship to Einstein, all three men were invited in. In the course of the examination, Forman asked Gödel what the government of Austria was, to which he replied: “It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.” The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded “Oh, yes, I can prove it”, but the judge declined to pursue the matter.
Since the exact nature of Gödel’s Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known. In a 2012 paper, “Gödel’s Loophole”, F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V’s procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a “downward” direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still
I don’t know if it qualifies, but a rogue Supreme Court giving the president immunity from prosecution so he can order the military to kill or jail his opponents and then pardon the perpetrators seems like quite a loophole to me.
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 4, 2024
He seems depressed. Meanwhile, here’s more of the GOPs ballot rigging:
President Joe Biden’s Democratic allies could get a boost to keep him on the ticket from some unlikely partners: Republicans.
Led by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, Republicans are currently looking to guarantee that Biden will be the Democratic nominee — and to make it so that, if Biden withdraws, it won’t be easy to replace him on ballots.
While Biden’s campaign insists he has no plans to drop out, Republicans are gearing up for any and all possibilities. They’ve been preparing for this moment for quite some time.
About four months ago, after special counsel Robert Hur’s report raised more concerns about Biden’s health, staffers at Heritage’s Oversight Project started researching laws in states across the country for replacing a nominee. They laid out just how difficult it would be for Democrats to replace Biden in key swing states in a memo that was compiled in early April and released last week ahead of the debate.
“If the Biden family decides that President Biden will not run for re-election, the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state,” reads the memo. “There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful.”
The upshot was that replacing Biden on the ticket would be “extraordinarily difficult” and that “we would make it extraordinarily difficult,” Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell, who authored the memo, told NOTUS this week.
These are the people who scream “election interference” at every turn.
I don’t doubt they will do this and I assume the Democrats are holding all nighters in every state to determine if it’s possible.
