Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

We Win, They Riot

Susan Quinn
@SusanQuinn
Join to bookmark28likesJoin to like42comments

The hysteria about the process, outcome and follow-up to the upcoming November 5 election is ramping up. Given the riots of June 2020, we have reason to be concerned. So, it’s gratifying that some people are being proactive in anticipation of political violence.

A small group of active and retired law enforcement officials, intelligence officials and national security analysts and legal scholars gathered to discuss the best ways to be prepared:

The result is ‘Addressing the Threat of Political Violence in the 2024 Elections,’ a 70-page summary report I wrote that serves as both a warning and a playbook for those charged with overseeing public safety at the federal, state and local levels.

If they aren’t already, authorities should be collecting intelligence and devising plans for a range of possible disruptive scenarios. These could include attacks on — or abductions of — candidates, major public disturbances like riots, actions aimed at disrupting voting like cyberattacks or attacks on critical infrastructure as well as bombings, arsons, shootings or other violence at or near polling places.

The primary concern of the writers of this report was to try to reassure citizens that they could safely participate in elections; they would also be communicating to other nations that we are determined to conduct safe and fair elections. That commitment to integrity could only help our reputation internationally, given the battering we have taken globally.

The report recommended that state “fusion centers” be created to coordinate responses to violence:

Drawing on the fusion centers’ work and a reexamination of existing law, playbooks could guide authorities from the state level down to the polling station level. Chains of command should be established, public hotlines set up and press strategies devised.

The work of these groups should be networked to share intelligence, information and warnings, as well as best practices.

The degree to which these recommendations, which were distributed in August of this year, have been activated is unclear. But it makes sense to try to create an environment for citizens to not only vote without fear, but to feel safe before, during and after the election.

Still, the Left insists on implicating the political Right when it comes to disruption:

Now, Donald Trump’s political comeback has revived a sense of dread among the officials and institutions who stood in his way last time: Could it happen again?

Dozens of interviews with people deeply familiar or involved with the election process point to a clear consensus: Not only could Trump make a second attempt at overturning an election he loses, he and his allies are already laying the groundwork.

I suspect that the Left is projecting the steps they would like to take onto Trump:

Politico states that the potential disruption is dire:

— He will deepen distrust in the election results by making unsupported or hyperbolic claims of widespread voter fraud and mounting longshot lawsuits challenging enough ballots to flip the outcome in key states.

— He will lean on friendly county and state officials to resist certifying election results — a futile errand that would nevertheless fuel a campaign to put pressure on elected Republican legislators in statehouses and Congress.

— He will call on allies in GOP-controlled swing-state legislatures to appoint “alternate” presidential electors.

— He will rely on congressional Republicans to endorse these alternate electors — or at least reject Democratic electors — when they convene to certify the outcome.

— He will try to ensure Harris is denied 270 votes in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House, where Republicans are likely to have the numbers to choose Trump as the next president.

I think it's unlikely that these strategies will be carried out by the Trump camp, since I believe he’s not interested in creating this type of disruption, and he has a good chance of winning the Presidency.

And I predict that the Democrats are likely to adopt these destructive strategies to make sure that chaos reigns.

Recommended by Members

Discussion (42)

  • Banned Member@philo

    Also…They win, they riot.

  • Susan Quinn@SusanQuinn

    Based on reports, I am cautiously optimistic that Trump will pull this off, in spite of all their potential machinations. He has a lot of things going in his direction, and all the Hitler, fascist, dementia comments seem to be receiving some skepticism. I'm putting my optimism in the ring.

  • Bob Thompson@BobThompson
    Susan Quinn (View Post):
    Still, the Left insists on implicating the political Right when it comes to disruption:

    "In 2020, however, some Trump allies argued that legislatures have unilateral, incontestable power to change their minds — and could simply claim lack of faith in the results to snatch the decision back for themselves. Conservative attorneys like John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, who have both been criminally charged for their roles in the 2020 election process, developed this theory and lobbied for such an outcome. Under their theories, state legislatures would send their own competing slate of electors to Congress — alongside the slates submitted by governors — and urge Congress to choose between them. Trump increasingly leaned on these fringe ideas as his traditional routes to power began to close."

    I never thought sending multiple slates of electors and having Congress choose which to accept meets any of the Constitutional requirements. Congress makes a decision on who becomes President if no candidate is certified getting a majority of Electoral College votes. I also never became aware that what is described was what Eastman and colleagues were suggesting. Of course, getting truth from media has been a problem for a while now.

    The Constitution places that role solely with the state legislatures so, if there is some sort of conflict within the state, the state legislature is where the authority to decide which slate to certify is to be made, not the federal Congress.

    We should always remember that when an authority for a responsibility, in this case certifying EC electors to vote for President, is delegated in some fashion by a state legislature, it is only valid until rescinded by a future state legislative action.

    This power is what makes a request by the VP (Pence for the 2020 election) to the state legislatures or governors of certain states where there was evidence of election process irregularities to reconsider the certifications and resubmit reasonable and not prohibited by any law including the Constitution.

+37 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 42 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.