There are some in the US Congressional Democratic Party leadership who have yet to figure out, that’s there a real possibility that the Republican President Donald Trump could win reelection in November 2020, via the electoral college map.
If President Trump succeeds in squeaking out another election upset, via playing the electoral college map with help from GOP led states with partisan gerrymandered maps approved by the US Supreme Court; the GOP state rules regarding voter ID laws and other tactics designed to depress Democratic likely voters from exercising their rights; assistance with love from Russia, and a war chest worth well over $100 million dollars, there’s a very real probability that he’ll never be held criminally liable for all of his felonious acts and abuses of power.
As per a 6/20/2019 Business Insider report, “A top election analyst outlined a very plausible nightmare scenario for Democrats in 2020” by Grace Panetta:
“President Donald Trump won the electoral college despite losing the popular vote in 2016, and there are multiple possible scenarios in which he could so again in 2020.”
“In one plausible scenario outlined by Cook Political Report election analyst Dave Wasserman, Trump could lose the popular vote by around 5 million votes but still win the electoral college by one vote for a result of 270-268.”
“Wasserman said this scenario could play out if Democrats expand their vote margins in California and Texas, flip Pennsylvania and Michigan, but lose to Trump in Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.”
“For Trump to win re-election by one electoral college vote in the situation Wasserman outlined, Trump would also need to repeat his 2016 performance in Maine by winning one of the state’s four electoral college votes.”
Read NYT/ Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign
Should President Trump win reelection in 2020, there’s this 5 yr. “Statute of Limitation” which kicks in for the all the criminal activity that President Trump is alleged to have perpetrated, as per the FBI’s 3/22/2019 final report regarding its 22 months long Trump-Russia probe, led by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, who was the former 12 year FBI Director. This means that President Trump could walk away scot-free from any criminal liability for any of the federal crimes that he’s been accused of doing. There are some who suggest that the “Statute of Limitations” can be tolled/ stopped while he’s serving his 2nd term in the White House but that’s not true in criminal law. There’s talk of passing legislation to fix this problem which’ll never see the light of day because the GOP controlled US Senate will block its passage.
Jed Shugerman of @jedshug tweeted following on 7/18/2019:
In short, there’s this 2000 DOJ Department of Justice’s (OLC) Office of Legal Counsel’s legal memo which bars a sitting president from being criminally indicted while he’s still serving in the White House.
As per the 12/14/2018 Economist report, “Can a president be indicted while in office?” “Although America’s constitution is silent on the question, the Watergate-era memo observed, a president subjected to an indictment would trigger “a traumatic event” both “politically and constitutionally”. It would “interfere with the president’s unique official duties”, too.”
“This theme was reiterated in the memo of 2000, when the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel of the US Department of Justice) argued that Congress’s impeachment power was the sole legitimate way to discipline presidents for bad behaviour. To indict a president via “an unelected grand jury and prosecutor” is “inconsistent” with the framers’ “carefully considered judgment” that it is impeachment or bust. Indictment in office would subvert the “underlying dynamics of our governmental system in profound and necessarily unpredictable ways.”
In conclusion, unless President Trump is subject to an impeachment inquiry by the House, he will not be facing justice for his federal crimes until after he leaves office, at the earliest, in January 2021, and if he’s reelected, he’ll just game the system where he can’t ever be held criminally accountable.
My million dollar question is, how will the Democratic Party Speaker Nancy Pelosi explain this reality if President Trump wins reelection and she loses her majority position in the House, for not implementing the one non-legislative remedy granted it by the US Constitution, the power to commence an “Impeachment Inquiry/ investigation against President Trump, designed by our forefathers to specifically hold a wanna-be tyrannical president, accountable.
Here’s the rest of the story…
On July 16, 2019, Thomas L. Friedman for the New York Times penned the following analysis, “Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?” (“Voters have reason to worry.”)
“I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.”
“I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.”
“I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.”
“I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.”
“So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.”
“Dear Democrats: This isn’t complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!”
“But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: 4 more years of Donald Trump.”
“Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name 2 right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.”
“Yes sir, that’ll be a revolution!”
“It’ll be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the USA.”
“If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.”
“That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.”
Link to entire report: nytimes.com/ ‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He? …
Sounds like a sad truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This possibility would be moot if there wasn’t an electoral college map. But this is why I’m convinced that President Trump’s legs need to cut off before November 2020. This requires a more offensive strategy by the Democratic Party.
Speaker Pelosi has some tough decisions to make, but she wanted this job. I don’t envy her. For me all tactical decisions should be made on the assumption that President Trump could win.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Gronda. I disagree with Thomas L. Friedman. I am getting really tired of hearing people say Democrats need to be more like Republicans to win Republican votes. Why? I do not hear anyone saying Republicans need to earn Democratic voters. Instead the Republicans double down and go farther right and take joy in it. To ask that Democrats compromise to appeal to a group that doesn’t want to join with them any way is simply a game of moving the left to the right. I have been watching that game since the 1970’s. As the republicans moved to the right people started talking about how the democrats needed to “hold the center”, centralist Democrats. Well the republicans kept going harder right and the center moved with them. That means the ones trying to hold the center had to move further right. I do not want a republican lite for a candidate. If people want Republican policies they will vote republican and if people want Democratic polices they will vote for a Democrat.
Oh healthcare and Medicare for all. The scare tactic is to claim people will lose their private insurance. So what? The problem is people hear they are going to lose their insurance and equate that to losing their access to healthcare. That is the situation we are trying to fix , loss of healthcare access. No one says they love their insurance company, they say they are very lucky to have some so they can see their doctor. We need to better explain that they wont need private insurance as they will have a better healthcare with less cost that covers more things. I watch the outright lies on State TV where they have the talking points down to mislead the viewers while trying to prop up profits of companies that deny you healthcare procedures.
We know the Republicans and their allies are going to demonize anything we try to do and everything the Democrats say. They wont talk about their polices as Republicans do not have any. So they demonize the policies of the Democrats and gin up their Republican base. Funny thing is if you ask the questions to people if they want this or that they say yes, then tell them the policy name or who it is from and they are stunned. I remember when Republican tea party members would hold signs saying “keep your government off my medicare” and those people who said they did not care of “Obamacare” was killed because they had the ACA healthcare programs. It is the names they fear not the policies.
One last thing, I loved the post but I am less worried about the statute of limitations than I am the rest of loss of democracy he and his crew will kill off, if he is reelected. Barr has already killed any of the federal investigations / prosecutions against any trump organization, bushiness, political dealings, and underhanded money dealings. State prosecutions are all we have left now. If tRump gets a second term he will destroy any legal system of this country. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
I go back and forth on this issue. Personally, my number 1 objective is to make sure to oust President Trump and to beat him at the polls in huge numbers. Also, I want someone who’ll be a unifier and a healer. Then I want back in the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal, if possible. I want someone who can repair the relationship between the US and other countries.
For me I’m okay with fixing ACA with the add-on of a public option like Medicare or for a system with Medicare for all. It’s a lie that the private insurance companies will disappear. I who live in Florida have a Medicare Advantage plan that’s run by Aetna. Then there’re supplemental plans that are managed by private health insurance companies. The insurance companies won’t make the same profit margins.
You are right. The GOP members will demonize Dems with words like socialism, infanticide, we’re for open borders with no restrictions. Its up to Dems to educate the public that GOP considers ACA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance programs as equaling socialism. If GOP had their way, they’d cut all these programs. That’s why republicans have moved heaven and earth to kill ACA, and they’re still at it.
There’s the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 on the books, and so, infanticide is already against the law. Gov. Abbott of TX just made a big deal of signing another, “born alive” bill. I’m guessing that this is another political stunt to cater to Evangelical base. I’ll probably blog on this later.
The other reason that my priority is someone who can beat President Trump, end of story., is that I want to end the practice of nominating extreme partisans to the Supreme Court and the federal benches.
I’ll back, vote for whoever the candidate is. I can live with Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete, Joe Biden, and the MT Governor Steve Bullock. My priority is for a candidate who can stand toe to toe with President Trump and win.
It’s my opinion only, that Dems should elect their choice of a candidate, and the GOP “Never Trumpers” and the Independents will just have to live with whoever is selected.
The unifying goal should be to end the Trump reign.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Gronda. Medicare for all is vastly different than the Medicare we have today. The problem with a public option for the Medicare we have now is that there are needed services that won’t be covered. I have medicare, and my husband still works because we want to keep his work insurance that covers what medicare doesn’t. You wont need the supplemental insurance with Medicare for all. You will have medication coverage with no gap, you will have hearing and dental, you will only need private insurance to go beyond what a normal person wants. I could see some private insurance for the more wealthy that gives them what are called concierge doctor.
These doctors still must follow Medicare rules if they treat Medicare PTs. Most will keep treating Medicare PTs because unless you are in a very wealthy area there is not enough wealthy people to pay the huge costs of a concierge doctor? The ACA was always intended to be a stepping stone to universal coverage. It has serious flaws made much worse by the republicans. I had to have it for one year and I was lucky that my payment subsidy left me with a premium we could afford. For most people that is not the case today. Government subsidies are way down, costs are way up, insurance companies willing to enter the markets are few making it harder to get coverage and more pricey. The uncertainty the Republicans have caused have made saving the program at this rate impossible without a total overhaul to a new system. If we have to do that we might as well go with Medicare for all.
I agree we should elect who we feel is our best candidate and make it work. I also will vote for who the nominee is regardless if my preference is not the one. That is what all of us should do. We all want to beat tRump. But during the primary we are not appealing to Republicans because a Republican lite candidate will lose the base votes we need. During the general we need to do what you said, educate and get the correct information to the public. The way I see it is that those who won’t vote for tRump yet don’t want to vote for a Democrat will not vote. The voters we need to reach are not the center right voter, but the left voter, the voter for the future, the POC, the women, the youth, the ones passionate about the planet, and other left causes. I expect during that time I will be busy swatting at all the misleading lies spewed by Republicans and hateful bigots. Look at it this way. These bigots still make incorrect claims and tell flat out lies about gay people that were debunked decades ago. They do not care about the truth, they want to hate, they want to be bigots, they want control. I am basically done trying to get through to them and now I talk around them to those willing to hear the truth to counter their nonsense. The bigots are in their last grasp for power and then they will fade away. Hopefully. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Medicare for all is excellent when one has no job or insurance at all. You may have to wait several months before you get to see a doctor, but it’s better than nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello 1EarthUnited. Even with private insurance medicare is wonderful for what it covers. I had to wait three years for my left hip replacement because I couldn’t afford the copays with private insurance. I now have both. I love the idea of Medicare for all as it expands what is so great about Medicare and gets rid of the copay system that harms so many people. As for waiting for a doctor for two months, here in Florida where I live it is normal to wait that long with private insurance if not longer. I waited 6 months for my primary care first appointment and as I said I have both insurances with Medicare as secondary. As you say it is great for those that can get it and need it. The horrible fact is too many are without any coverage and so effectively without healthcare. We seriously have been indoctrinated to think of healthcare as a privilege when the rest of the world sees it as a human right, as it should be. I am so angered at the state governors who did not take medicaid expansion when they could and help so many people who have no healthcare, all for political reasons such as the black guy wanted it. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments are closed.