Connect with us

Could the Electoral College Actually Do Its Job?

Published

on

Asking the Right Questions but Little Impetus to Act

The number of electors increased Wednesday afternoon to 55, 54 Democrats and one Republican, who are demanding that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper release all pertinent details regarding any potential investigations into Donald Trump’s relationship with the Russian government. They are joining a growing chorus of persons alarmed by the appearance of impropriety by Donald Trump and Russian influence over the election. 

This chorus includes Robert Reich, who told reporters over the weekend that a “dark cloud of illegitimacy” hangs over the pending presidency of Donald Trump. Reich, a former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, says that the only remedy is for the president-elect to release his tax returns and for the CIA to release its findings about alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election to help Trump win. Reich argues that before the Electoral College submits its ballots for president next week, “Trump must release his tax returns and the CIA must make public its report on Russia’s intervention in the U.S. elections in support of Trump.”  

2.jpgAs the debate rages in the media and on social media, not all electors will shift their vote and abandon their commitment to voting for Trump. Brian Ballard, a Florida elector told NCRM he has been inundated with persons trying to get him to change his vote. He said that he won’t as he felt he was obligated to the “people of Florida” to uphold their will. He also noted that he “loved  Trump” and really did want him to be president. Ballard added that he didn’t put too much stock in the CIA assessment of Russian interference in the election process.

As the 538 delegates in the Electoral College gather at in statehouses across the nation this coming Monday to make Trump’s victory over Clinton official, political experts tell NCRM that it’s fairly unlikely electors will defect in significant numbers. The final tally of votes isn’t expected to deviate much from the election results where Trump had won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232.

But not all experts agree with that assessment, including Harvard University law professor and former presidential candidate Larry Lessig. Speaking with Politico, Lessig said 20 Republican Electoral College voters are considering changing their votes and casting ballots voting against Donald Trump. 37 electors slated to vote for Trump are needed to throw the election into the House of Representatives.

“Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote,” Lessig said. 

The Founding Fathers of the American republic were gravely concerned about the possibility of a demagogue rising to power backed by a foreign adversary. The Electoral College, one founder – thought to be Alexander Hamilton – argued in The Federalist Paper No. 68, was a means by which that scenario could be prevented.

He also wrote that electors had a constitutional duty to make sure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

However, as the American nation’s experiment in democracy solidified and its strength and influence as a world power grew over the next two centuries, Hamilton’s warning and words seemed to fade to the point of being thought of as no more than a quaint anachronism. Before the election cycle of 2016, there were only four elections – 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, where the Electoral College had not elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide.

Speaking with several Republican electors, NCRM learned that for the most part, none felt that circumstances with Trump and the calls that the Russian hacking were influencing the election’s outcome along with the conflicts swirling around him regarding his business interests and the potential for conflict of interest were enough to change their vote.

RELATED: Storm Clouds Gathering Around Trump

Then too, the view of the Russian interference may be cast in a new light according to a YouGov/Economist poll released Wednesday. One elector who declined to be named told NCRM it is possible that the danger of Russian influence is being overstated. The polling results revealed that just under 21 percent of all Americans see Russia as an ally or friendly, while 58 percent see Moscow as an enemy or unfriendly. In a further inquiry, pollsters found that 54 percent think Trump sees Russia as a friend.

Among Trump supporters and voters, which presumably would include Electors committed to voting for him, there’s also a partisan divide over views of Russian President Vladimir Putin. 51 percent view the Russian president unfavorably, with 35 percent viewing him favorably. Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton poll at an 80 percent unfavorable rating and an 8 percent favorable rating for Putin.

Brody Levesque is the Chief Political Correspondent for The New Civil Rights Movement.
You may contact Brody at Brody.Levesque@thenewcivilrightsmovement.com 

 

Image by Beverly via Flickr and a CC license

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘I Don’t Think She Survives This’: Gabbard Faces Blowback After ‘Devastating’ Testimony

Published

on

Rumors continue to swirl about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard‘s future as critics on Wednesday slammed her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, especially when she declared that it is not the Intelligence Community’s “responsibility” to determine what constitutes an imminent national security threat — a claim that received tremendous blowback.

“Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?” asked U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

“The Intelligence Community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability,” Gabbard replied.

“Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?” Ossoff pressed.

“Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard responded.

READ MORE: ‘Reeks of a Coverup’: DOJ Official Accused of Blocking ‘Mysterious’ Epstein Probe Document

“False,” Ossoff replied. “This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.”

Podcaster Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq War veteran and founder of a veterans nonprofit, slammed Gabbard’s remarks.

“I don’t think she survives this,” Rieckhoff wrote. “She’s already not trusted in Trump world as a former Democrat. And not trusted by most people period. Sooner or later, Trump is gonna dump her and blame her.”

“But like Noem, Hegseth, and so many others, she shouldn’t have been there in [the] first place,” he added. “And anyone who voted for her is responsible for this mess now. It’s all coming to the fore now. They are all being revealed. That’s what war does. Especially forever war that is now overflowing beyond US control. Our enemies are celebrating yet again. And we are all less safe. More and more by the minute.”

The Steady State, a group of 400 former national security officials, denounced Gabbard’s claim that “the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

The group called her remark “flatly incompatible with her statutory obligation to provide ‘timely, objective, and independent of political considerations’ national intelligence assessments of threats to Congress.”

Mark Seddon, a former speechwriter for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, called Gabbard’s testimony “devastating.”

“The fact that DNI Tulsi Gabbard does not believe it is the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine if a threat is imminent is disqualifying for her to be the National Intelligence Director,” wrote retired U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer Travis Akers. “That is one, among many, of the primary responsibilities of the IC.”

READ MORE: ‘Grave Concern’: Democrats Demand DHS Preserve All Corey Lewandowski Records

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Reeks of a Coverup’: DOJ Official Accused of Blocking ‘Mysterious’ Epstein Probe Document

Published

on

The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is accusing a prominent Department of Justice official, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, of blocking access to the details of what he is calling a “mysterious Epstein investigation.”

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) called the move “stunning interference,” and said that the document “literally says ‘unclassified’ at the top.”

“Given Blanche’s close personal ties to Donald Trump,” Wyden added, “this reeks of a continued coverup to protect key names in the Trump administration.”

Wyden also said that Blanche, whom he noted was Trump’s personal attorney, and “was also responsible for Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a cushy club fed … has intervened to block the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] from providing details of a mysterious Epstein investigation to my Finance Committee team.”

READ MORE: ‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

Wyden wrote: “Recent reporting revealed that Epstein was one of several targets of a big drug trafficking investigation a decade ago. DEA has key info. Based on what we know, Epstein was likely pumping his victims, young women and girls, with incapacitating drugs to facilitate abuse.”

The Democratic lawmaker pointed to a Bloomberg News article that said, “A Department of Justice document combined with interviews reveal that a long-running investigation into organized crime led law enforcement to suspect the serial sex abuser of money laundering, distributing ‘club drugs’ and operating a prostitution ring.”

He said that his team “immediately sought key documents from that investigation.”

“What was the result, and why did the investigation end?” he asked. “We were notified that the DEA intended to release those documents to the Finance Committee. Then Deputy AG Todd Blanche intervened.”

A separate Bloomberg Government report stated that “Blanche is blocking the Drug Enforcement Administration from releasing an unredacted document from the Jeffrey Epstein files about an investigation involving drug trafficking and money laundering, according to a letter Democratic Senator Ron Wyden sent to Blanche on Tuesday.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

Published

on

A prominent former senior adviser to President Donald Trump is disputing his claim that “nobody” knew Iran would target neighboring nations or close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. attacked, saying that he personally warned him of those possibilities.

John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser during his first term, “said that on multiple occasions he brought up scenarios in which Iran was attacked and responded with retaliatory strikes in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere,” The Hill reported.

“Well, I know for a fact that he was aware of those potentials. I raised the option of regime change in Iran several times during the time I was national security adviser,” Bolton told CNN.

“If you’re going to embark” on attacking Iran, Bolton added, “you better have answers” to how Iran would respond, “and certainly closing the Strait of Hormuz was always one of them and so were attacks on the Gulf Arab states, particularly their oil infrastructure, so he knew about it in his first term.”

“I find it hard to believe that he forgot about it in the intervening years,” the former Trump NSA said.

“Nobody, nobody, no, no, no,” President Trump said when asked if anyone had told him how Iran would retaliate. “No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years.”

Trump also said this week that Iran wasn’t “supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East. Those missiles were set to go after them. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”

READ MORE: ‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.