President Trump And First Lady Test Positive For The Coronavirus

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
"Working" has no effect on the progression of this disease.

Delaying treatment? There is no universally proven treatment. Only treatments that are "promising", or work in some cases.

Delaying intubation can be a problem, but you're pretty far gone by then. And this is usually because there's none available, not by choice of the patient.
 
Last edited:

Nth

Member
i think they'd still turn out. the left is going too left, too fast for most people's sensibilities.
Maybe, maybe not. I question how many people would rush out to vote for a candidate who's been in the race for, at best, a couple weeks. The GOP would be best served in that case by pulling up somebody like Ted Cruz who's both well-known (as the Zodiac Killer ;)) and took second place in the 2016 Republican primaries.

Who knows though -- I can't really presume to know anyone's mindset but my own.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
There's no way of knowing.

But according to the article I linked to, it's too late to change candidates. It's Trump, dead or alive.

But the popular vote has no legal bearing. The Electors would go on to decide who to vote for... but state laws would make this messy indeed.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I'm not terribly familiar with Johnson's case outside of (largely) perusing headlines.

this article has a good breakdown
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/boris-johnson-and-coronavirus-inside-story-illness

he was admitted on day 10 and went to intensive care day 11. It's probable his experience is what is helping prompt Trump to get early care. (That and it would be too embarrassing for him if he gets wiped out long term, what they call "long haulers" or died)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
. I question how many people would rush out to vote for a candidate who's been in the race for, at best, a couple weeks.
that's because you aren't a conservative and don't think what the left is doing is so bad. Trump didn't win the majority vote for the nomination (which had never happened before), but people still went out and voted for him because at least he wasn't a Democrat.

like Ted Cruz who's both well-known (as the Zodiac Killer ;))
i think that was his dad. :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's Trump, dead or alive.
so basically it would be Pence. ? could you imagine a debate between Pence and Biden? I guess it wouldn't really matter if we all fell asleep in the first 15 minutes since neither of them ever says anything anyway.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Sanjay Gupta - twitter - about an hour old
After announcing a positive Covid-19 test early Friday morning, President Trump ended the day at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where we are told he’ll remain for “the next few days.”

The White House said this was being done out of an “abundance of caution.” We know, however, that he developed progressive symptoms over the day, including a fever and fatigue. Mild symptoms can turn severe quickly, especially in a vulnerable individual.


Notably, before heading to the hospital the president was treated with the highest dose of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody cocktail. This experimental therapeutic hasn't been authorized or approved by the FDA. Regeneron said he received it under a compassionate use request.

This request is normally “intended for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not have any viable or available treatment options, and are unable to participate in ongoing trials.”

What else do we know about the president’s health? His notable health concerns have been his weight and previous evidence of heart disease. In 2018, his last publicly reported coronary calcium score was 133.

There was also this unexplained visit to Walter Reed in Nov 2019

According to CDC, having a BMI >30 means 3 times the risk of hospitalization.

For people in the 65-74 age range, that risk is 5 times higher compared with 18-to 29-year-olds. Men are also at higher risk of serious outcomes.

As concerning as all of this sounds, the odds are still very much in the president’s favor: CDC estimates an infection fatality ratio of 5.4% for someone over 70.

A source close to the Coronavirus Task Force told me that even they have been “in the dark” about the president’s health despite being world experts on this disease. During this time transparency about the president’s health will be critically important.

This is an unsettling time for our nation, but again: the odds are the president and first lady will recover from this disease. We wish them a speedy recovery.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Nth

Member
that's because you aren't a conservative and don't think what the left is doing is so bad. Trump didn't win the majority vote for the nomination (which had never happened before), but people still went out and voted for him because at least he wasn't a Democrat.


i think that was his dad. :)
Haha, I consider myself to be a slightly center-left moderate and recovering talk radio baby. :p

Strictly speaking, I'm not a huge fan of either side, but I'm also more or less an atheist and don't feel comfortable ceding control to what I see as an increasingly religion-driven Republican party. The Democratic party seems not to have that problem and, frankly, I live in North Carolina where the supposedly "hardcore Marxist-socialist left-wing Democrats" are pretty moderate overall. They're not gonna go and nationalize Starbucks or anything.

And no, I firmly believe that modern-day Ted Cruz took a time machine into the past, became the Zodiac Killer, and travelled back into the future before being caught. Moreover, he went back to before he was born for plausible deniability. That said, his father killed JFK. ;)

All joking aside, this conversation is going very far afield and I don't want to bring down The Wrath of Mick West. Per the actual topic of the thread, there's still a lot of information that isn't publicly available or isn't even known yet, and speculation is of very limited utility.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
There was also this unexplained visit to Walter Reed in Nov 2019

it was explained.

side note:
Donald Jr was on Tucker tonight (theres a clip on Youtube) and Tucker asked him how long "a few days?" and Don Jr kinda said they dont know it depends on how things go, there's no set time.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
hhmmm...thats where Melania went for several days for her alleged kidney procedure, which i also thought was cover for cosmetic surgery.
All recent US presidents (and their wives, apparently) use Walter Reed as their hospital, presumably for security reasons. It's not the first time Trump has been there, either.

I don't have any information on what the "experimental antibody therapy" is, but it could be monoclonal antibodies:
Article:
In this approach, researchers isolate antibodies from recovering patients and identify those that best ‘neutralize’ the virus by binding to it and keeping it from replicating. They then produce these antibodies in bulk in the laboratory. If the treatment is found to be effective, companies will scale up production, using cells grown in giant bioreactors.

This differs from ‘convalescent plasma’ treatments, composed of a complex mixture of antibodies and molecules taken directly from the blood of people recovering from COVID-19 and used to treat other patients. The effects of both of these approaches are short term: neither type of treatment will produce a long-lasting immune response.


Article:
A second company has now produced strong hints that monoclonal antibodies, synthetically produced versions of proteins made by the immune system, can work as treatments in people who are infected with the pandemic coronavirus but are not yet seriously ill.

The biotech Regeneron Pharmaceuticals has developed a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies that attach to the surface protein of that coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and attempt to block it from infecting cells. Yesterday at an investor and media webcast, the firm revealed early results.

[..]

Skovronsky says Lilly has a simpler plan: Offer monoclonals to people who test positive for the virus if they are in high-risk groups for developing severe disease, which include the elderly and people with underlying diseases such as diabetes or who are overweight.

[..]

Monoclonal antibodies are more difficult to make than many drugs and often are extremely expensive, which means that supply could outstrip demand and many countries might not be able to afford them. The U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed has invested $450 million in Regeneron to produce up to 300,000 “doses” of its cocktail by the end of the year, which would be distributed to Americans free of charge. “A substantial fraction of those are already available,” Yancopoulos said—although it’s not yet clear what constitutes a single dose of the company’s cocktail. [..]

The second article is from September 30th and reflects the current situation.

If I understand the medicine correctly, this therapy could help Trump beat the infection, but he might not develop an immune response of his own, and could contract Covid-19 again later.

Edit: That's exactly what he's getting, I had missed the page break when I wrote my post:
Sanjay Gupta - twitter - about an hour old
Notably, before heading to the hospital the president was treated with the highest dose of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody cocktail. This experimental therapeutic hasn't been authorized or approved by the FDA. Regeneron said he received it under a compassionate use request.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Remember that the Electors can vote for anyone, with no reference to the popular vote. So this is untested but not impossible.
There is precedent.
Article:
On November 29, 1872, after the popular vote was counted, but before the Electoral College cast its votes, Greeley died. As a result, electors previously committed to Greeley voted for four candidates for president and eight candidates for vice president.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
" More new cases in the White House cluster than there was in Australia today"
Source: https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1312252928565161984


" Melania, Sen. Mike Lee and the Rev. John Jenkins, all of who have tested positive for Covid-19, were in close proximity to senators and White House officials at last Saturday's ACB announcement. "
(Bigger image at https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/02/trump-timeline-activities-425041 )
Source: https://twitter.com/tmthomasdc/status/1312177048786366465


Attempt and rebuttal at a conspiracy on why it's mostly Republicans: "Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?" -- "Not understanding the reason is the reason."
Source: https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1312048741860466688
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Chris Christie tested positive along with other members of Trump's debate prep team.
Article:
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who helped President Donald Trump prepare for the first presidential debate earlier this week, has tested positive for Covid-19, he announced on Twitter Saturday.
Other members of the President's debate prep team and inner circle have since announced they have tested positive for the virus.

Source: https://twitter.com/GovChristie/status/1312416381758050305
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.

From right, Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie greet people in the Rose Garden. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo
Content from External Source
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/1...rson-familiar-with-the-presidents-health-said

President Trump’s vital signs on Saturday were concerning as doctors mounted an aggressive effort to treat him and he was not out of danger, a person close to the situation said, even as the coronavirus infected an ever widening swath of the president’s aides and allies.

While doctors maintained during a televised briefing that Mr. Trump was “doing very well” after a night at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, they refused to provide critical details and left open the impression that the president was known to be sick a day earlier than previously reported.

Shortly after the upbeat briefing by the doctors, a person familiar with the president’s health gave a more sober assessment to reporters at Walter Reed on the condition of anonymity. “The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care,” this person said. “We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.

Two people close to the White House said in separate interviews with The New York Times that the president had trouble breathing on Friday and that his oxygen level dropped, prompting his doctors to give him supplemental oxygen while at the White House and decide to transfer him to Walter Reed where he could be monitored with better equipment and treated more rapidly in case of trouble.

Dr. Sean P. Conley, the White House physician, told reporters outside Walter Reed that the president was not currently on supplemental oxygen on Saturday but repeatedly declined to say definitively whether he had ever been on oxygen. “None at this moment and yesterday with the team, while we were all here, he was not on oxygen,” he said, seeming to suggest that there was a period on Friday when he was.
Content from External Source
There is a long history of official denial, downplaying and obfuscation in regard to the health of presidents. Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan...



The man has gone from fatigue to hospitalization in one day. If this were an ordinary patient, this is a very rapid progression. One might hold out hope that this hospitalization indicates an overabundance of caution because this is the president. But what changed from this morning to this afternoon? A worsening of symptoms? Or a change in the way they are thinking about this?

The next step would be intubation. If that occurs, all ambiguity will be gone.

This is what changed.
...the president had trouble breathing on Friday and... his oxygen level dropped, prompting his doctors to give him supplemental oxygen while at the White House and decide to transfer him to Walter Reed...
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
Trump received Regeneron and Remdesivir, which are still experimental, and is taking vitamin D and zinc, but no mention of hydroxychloroquine, which he said he took in May.
Article:
(May 18) President Donald Trump said Monday that he is taking a malaria drug to lessen symptoms should he get the new coronavirus, even though the drug is unproven for fighting COVID-19... Trump said his doctor did not recommend the drug to him, but he requested it from the White House physician.


Article:
President Trump is taking experimental coronavirus drugs Remdesivir and a Regeneron drug after being diagnosed with COVID-19 this week, his former White House physician told "Fox & Friends Weekend."
... The president was taken to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center "out of an abundance of caution" Friday night and is being treated with experimental drugs in response to a compassionate use request.
...
“Following PCR-confirmation of the president’s diagnosis, as a precautionary measure he received a single 8-gram dose of Regeneron’s polyclonal antibody cocktail,” a memo released Friday afternoon by Dr. Sean P. Conley, the president’s physician stated. "He completed the infusion without incident.”
"In addition to the polyclonal antibodies, the president has been taking zinc, Vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin," Conley said.

No mention of convalescent plasma, which the FDA approved for emergency use to much fanfare after halting it three days prior.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/1...l-recovery-the-presidents-chief-of-staff-said

The NYT article has been updated. "A person familiar with the president’s health " has now been identified as Mark Meadows, the chief of staff.

President Trump’s vital signs were “very concerning” over the last day and he is not out of danger, the White House chief of staff said on Saturday, contradicting a rosier picture painted by the president’s doctors on television just minutes before.

While the doctors maintained that Mr. Trump was “doing very well” and in “exceptionally good spirits” after his first night in the hospital with the coronavirus, Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, provided a more sober assessment and warned that the next two days would be pivotal in determining the outcome of the illness.

“The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care,” Mr. Meadows told reporters outside Walter Reed Medical Military Center, where the president was flown on Friday evening and will remain for at least a few days. “We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.”

Mr. Meadow’s remarks were attributed to a person familiar with the president’s health in a pool report sent to White House journalists in keeping with ground rules that he set for the interview. But a video posted online captured Mr. Meadows approaching the pool reporters outside Walter Reed following the doctors’ televised briefing and asking to speak off the record, making clear who the unnamed source was.

The mixed messages only exacerbated the confusion and uncertainties surrounding the president’s situation. During their briefing, the doctors refused to provide important details and gave timelines that conflicted with earlier White House accounts and left the impression that the president was sick and began treatment earlier than officially reported.
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
There is a long history of official denial, downplaying and obfuscation in regard to the health of presidents. Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan...

unfortunately there is also a long history of alleged "anonymous sources" lately lying through their teeth or spreading rumors and media jumping on clickbait stories without fact checking.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
this is actually a horrible thing regarding timing. if he does die he probably wont die till like a week or two before the election and then all those early votes will have to be thrown out. what a mess this year has been!

Do you have a source for that (the throwing out of early votes)? That is not my understanding of how it would work, but I am not finding authoritative sources addressing a situation that has not come up before. The consensus I'm emerging with is that at this point is: those ballots for a deceased candidate's ELECTORS (who are still alive, and are who you actually vote for) would stand -- and what they would do when the Electoral College meets in the several states to actually elect a President is open to all sorts of question, as each state has it's own rules. (I am sorry to be unable to source that -- it is a synthesis of what I have read so far. Which is why I'd be very interested in any more definitive sources than I have found.)

(Edited to correct a typo.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Do you have a source for that (the throwing out of early votes)?
no but you cant vote for a dead guy. so i assume they would have to let you vote again for someone else.

edit note: im talking about if he dies before the election. i have no idea what would happen if he dies after but before Dec. i assume like zw said the electors would pick someone else. ??
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-trump-election-ex-idUSKBN26N343

- What happens if a candidate dies ahead of the election? Both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have rules that call for their members to vote on a replacement nominee. However, it is likely too late to replace a candidate in time for the election.


Early voting is underway, with more than 2.2 million votes cast, according to the U.S. Elections Project at the University of Florida. The deadline to change ballots in many states has also passed; mail ballots, which are expected to be widely used due to the coronavirus pandemic, have been sent to voters in two dozen states.

Unless Congress delays the election, voters would still choose between the Republican Trump and Democrat Joe Biden even if one died before Nov. 3.
Content from External Source
There's much more.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
no but you cant vote for a dead guy. so i assume they would have to let you vote again for someone else.

edit note: im talking about if he dies before the election. i have no idea what would happen if he dies after but before Dec. i assume like zw said the electors would pick someone else. ??
Thanks.

I suspect that the idea that they'd have to let you vote again is in error, since you are in fact voting for electors, who would still be alive. Hopefully we will not have to find out. Speaking only for myself, I'm not in need of any more weird chaos right now...

FWIW, this is one reason I do not normally vote early, as the situation can change dramatically in the last days of en election, even if nobody dies! But this year, of course, is not a normal year.

Stay safe, all.and Keep Looking Up!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
since you are in fact voting for electors, who would still be alive

i hear you, but i think if you voted for electors but then decided on another party because the guy you voted for or didnt vote for died, then they would have to let you vote again. there's really no reason they wouldn't.. you could just let them know to cancel your previous vote and go to the polls election night or early vote in person.

this may not be the case, but if not then there will be even more lawsuits.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
See from 8:35 when the hugging starts. Mark Meadows seen hugging from 09:01. Senator Mike Lee and Chris Christie are prominent huggers. Lee seen hugging people from 10:07. Quite a lot of hand shaking and fist bumping. At 10:42 one of the military escorts can be seen dropping his mask while talking to the Mike Lee group.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94sptFMiC7g
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Trump received Regeneron and Remdesivir, which are still experimental, and is taking vitamin D and zinc

I got a facebook message from a conspiracy theorist about remdesivir (the CT stance being against it) back in April: it had been reported as being of benefit to covid-19 patients by CNN, but they weren't telling people were all the side effects:

1601759416818.png

I looked it up and it was mostly true - though something about it (can't remember exactly what) was exaggerated/misinterpreted.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-trump-election-ex-idUSKBN26N343

Under the Electoral College system, the winner of the election is determined by securing a majority of “electoral votes” allotted to the 50 states and the District of Columbia in proportion to their population.

The Electoral College’s electors will meet on Dec. 14 to vote for president. The winner must receive at least 270 of the 538 total Electoral College votes.

Each state’s electoral votes typically go to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Some states allow electors to vote for anyone they choose, but more than half of the states bind electors to cast their votes for the winner.


Most state laws that bind electors do not contemplate what to do if a candidate dies.
Michigan’s law requires electors to vote for the winning candidates who appeared on the ballot. Indiana law, by contrast, states that electors should switch to a party’s replacement if the candidate has died.

In the event of a candidate’s death, the opposing party might challenge in court whether bound electors should be allowed to vote for a replacement, said Lara Brown, the director of the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University.

“The most interesting question is really going to be, how will the Supreme Court handle a controversy like this?” she said.

But Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, said he viewed it as unlikely that a party would try to defy the will of voters if it was clear a particular candidate won the election.
Content from External Source



This, "You are voting for Electors" narrative is pettifoggery. To make it approximately accurate, and only in states that bind their Electors, you have to insert the word "effectively." There is nothing in the US Constitution that supports this narrative.

Our presidential election is an indirect vote, but the people you have voted for are your state legislators. They decide how Electors are chosen and what they have to do. The electors then represent the state legislature in another indirect vote... but the state legislatures vote directly for president if something goes wrong with the electoral vote.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Here's the bottom line. Our presidential voting process relies heavily on assumptions, customs and unwritten norms. Laws on both the Federal and State level are incomplete, often poorly written, and mostly untested.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Chris Christie tested positive along with other members of Trump's debate prep team.
Article:
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who helped President Donald Trump prepare for the first presidential debate earlier this week, has tested positive for Covid-19, he announced on Twitter Saturday.
Other members of the President's debate prep team and inner circle have since announced they have tested positive for the virus.

Source: https://twitter.com/GovChristie/status/1312416381758050305

Chris Christie was admitted to a hospital and started on a course of remdesivir.
Article:
Though he said his breathing is fine, he started a course of the Covid-19 treatment remdesivir after being admitted, Christie said.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
lee.png
Just between you and me, Mike... What are the chances for confirmation before the election?
Hey, I'm feeling very positive about it!
Group hug!
 

Agent K

Senior Member
lee.png
Just between you and me, Mike... What are the chances for confirmation before the election?
Hey, I'm feeling very positive about it!
Group hug!

The video also shows a guy shaking hands and then rubbing his nose, without a facemask of course.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
This, "You are voting for Electors" narrative is pettifoggery.

Not sure I've ever been accused of pettifoggery before. It's actually sort of neat, given the rarity of the word!

I think a deep discussion of electoral college rules and procedures (and, as you correctly point out later, the flaws left untested in same) probably belongs in a different thread, so I'll bow out with a final point: the Constitution does not speak to the election of Electors by the electorate (hows that for a phrase!?), it leaves it to the legislatures of the several states to decide how their electors will be chosen. All have now decided to have voters of the state elect the slate of electors for that state, choosing between those nominated by the various campaigns that make the ballot. Pettifoggery or not, that's the situation.

Last word left for anybody who wants it, I gotta go look at UFO reports and flat Earth threads. Today is a day that calls for lighter fare than a looming potential electoral crisis.

Keep looking up,

JIM
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
The lack of transparency from WH officials about the health and status of the POTUS, is curious and concerning.......but strangely not at all surprising.

The disclosure of the health of a country's leader, is essentially a national security issue. There will always be a positive spin if ever there is an issue.
So some obfuscations are to be expected.

...but this presidential administration is not typical, due to Trump.
The public has always been fed over-inflated positive vibes regarding leadership strength.....regardless of the situation.
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
When various situational explanations come from this particular administration..... it becomes habitual thinking.. "Is this the truth ?, or is this just another "positive spin" fed to the media ?
And this leaves the public to decide for themselves.....inventing holes for conspiracie to fill.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Not sure I've ever been accused of pettifoggery before. It's actually sort of neat, given the rarity of the word!

I think a deep discussion of electoral college rules and procedures (and, as you correctly point out later, the flaws left untested in same) probably belongs in a different thread, so I'll bow out with a final point: the Constitution does not speak to the election of Electors by the electorate (hows that for a phrase!?), it leaves it to the legislatures of the several states to decide how their electors will be chosen. All have now decided to have voters of the state elect the slate of electors for that state, choosing between those nominated by the various campaigns that make the ballot. Pettifoggery or not, that's the situation.

Last word left for anybody who wants it, I gotta go look at UFO reports and flat Earth threads. Today is a day that calls for lighter fare than a looming potential electoral crisis.

Keep looking up,

JIM
I'll try again, and I will explain why this is important. Your vote is an indirect vote. A direct vote for electors would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that the states can set up a system that effectively makes it a direct vote. State laws have been passed that say, "If the popular vote goes to the X candidate way we will select the X Electors." It still remains that you vote for your state legislators, they select the electors. That's the way it really is.

Why is it important? Because the narrative is being pushed that once the popular vote goes a certain way, we are guaranteed that the electors are legally bound to vote for the candidate we elected, because we voted for electors directly. That is false.

Scenario One
The state legislature can change their own law. In states such as Florida where the majority of the legislature and the Governor are both GOP, this could be done within a day. Then the legislature could select a new crew of electors or direct the existing electors to vote a certain way. And then you protest, "Hey we voted for those electors and they have to vote for the candidate we voted for." And they say "Wrong, suckers. Your vote has no legal bearing. We were using your vote as a guideline. But we just changed that."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-election/608989/
In Bush v. Gore, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court held that the state “can take back the power to appoint electors” at any time.
Content from External Source
Scenario Two:
The particular state law is poorly written, and the legislature ignores it on a technicality. For example: The law says nothing about what to do if a candidate dies. Or the law is well written and they still ignore it on a technicality The state supreme court rules with the legislature, or does not hear the case, or does not rule until long after everything is over for that election.

Scenario Three
The Governor has the power to certify the vote. The Governor may choose to select an entirely different crew of electors.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
One reading of the Electoral Count Act says that Congress must recognize the electors certified by the governor... another [reading] holds that Congress must discard both contested slates of electors. The garbled statute can plausibly be read either way.
Content from External Source

Bottom Line; There is nothing that guarantees our vote for president has to be honored.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top