Trump and the GOP’s Strategy to Overturn the Election Results Revealed

Sadly, my predictions often come true.

Currently, Donald Trump is actively campaigning in traditionally Democratic states such as California, Colorado, and New York, leaving many commentators baffled. Is this merely a display of his notorious ego, signs of madness, or is there a strategic method to his seeming madness?

I believe the latter is true: Trump is deploying a tactic to legally capture the presidency after losing both the popular and Electoral College votes, reminiscent of what Republican Rutherford B. Hayes achieved in the 1876 election.

Eight months before the 2020 election, I penned an article for Alternet.org, widely mocked at the time, where I suggested that Trump, upon losing, would utilize fake elector slates from swing states to push the Electoral College decision to the House of Representatives. According to the 12th Amendment, the Republican-controlled House would then likely install him as president.

This plan was something I learned about from a Republican insider during my time broadcasting in Washington, DC.

And, as history shows, that scenario nearly unfolded.

Thankfully, Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi intervened to prevent Trump and his cohort of unethical attorneys and legislators (like Mike Johnson who spearheaded the initiative in the House) from realizing their plan, but not before the chaos they incited at the Capitol resulted in the deaths of five civilians and three police officers.

Now, it seems apparent why Trump emphasizes the deployment of military around election day. He anticipates public uproar because he expects the House, the state Republicans, and the Supreme Court to hand him the presidency regardless of the electoral results.

Last Friday, my colleague at SiriusXM, Michelangelo Signorile, discussed with me a claim made by a notorious right-wing radio host. This host asserted that Trump’s campaigning efforts in Democratic states aim to bolster down-ballot Republican candidates, ensuring control of the House and enabling them to reject the election’s certification if needed, thus voting Trump back into power.

This revelation is alarmingly familiar. Reluctantly, I find myself in the role of Cassandra once again, warning of potential strategies by Trump and the GOP to usurp the White House this winter, with today’s Republicans signaling this very intention.

Article II, Section I, Clause 2 of the Constitution, along with the 12th Amendment, grants exclusive power to state legislatures to appoint electors for the presidential election.

The Constitution does not mandate that the electorate’s vote must directly influence the electoral votes of the state. The decision rests solely with the state legislature, independent of the governor.

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” as stated in Article II of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Rehnquist emphasized in the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, when the US Supreme Court halted the Florida recount that could have favored Al Gore, that:

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States… [T]he state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution.”

Typically, state legislatures direct their electors to vote for the candidate who won the state’s majority (with Maine and Nebraska as exceptions). However, as Rehnquist pointed out, a state legislature can, by a simple majority, direct its electors to vote for any candidate they choose, overruling the governor’s preferences.

In the 2000 election, the potential for a full Florida recount (which could have revealed additional votes favoring Al Gore) led Jeb Bush and Republican legislators in Florida to prepare to assign their electoral votes to George W. Bush, regardless of the recount’s outcome. This was their constitutional privilege, later underscored by Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.

David Barstow and Somini Sengupta reported for The New York Times in November 2000, just before the Supreme Court’s intervention:

“The president of Florida’s Senate said today that Gov. Jeb Bush had indicated his willingness to sign special legislation intended to award Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes to his brother Gov. George W. Bush of Texas even as the election results were being contested.”

Some might argue, “But Kamala Harris is Vice President, she wouldn’t allow such manipulation!” True, but this is beside the point.

The revised Electoral Count Act clearly states the Vice President’s role during the electoral count is ceremonial, yet it doesn’t, and without a constitutional amendment couldn’t, change the authority of Republican-controlled swing states to send electors for Trump (claiming voter fraud in their states).

This dishonest effort would likely lead the Supreme Court to decide which electors to count.

Many Court observers have noted the unusually light docket this fall, speculating that Chief Justice Roberts is preparing for a significant electoral decision, similar to the Court’s role in 2000.

The Court might then deem the election flawed due to alleged voter fraud — a narrative that Republicans, including Trump and Vance, are preemptively setting — and, citing the 12th Amendment, throw the decision to the House of Representatives.

In this scenario, each state’s House delegation casts a singular vote for president (the Senate does not participate under the 12th Amendment), and currently, 26 states have Republican majorities. This 26-24 split would favor Trump and Vance.

This strategy would require some states to either delay or refuse to certify their vote, or submit conflicting elector slates.

And we’re already hearing indications from local election officials and state legislators that this is precisely their intention.

Another approach might see a majority in the House refuse to certify a win for Harris.

This brings us back to Trump’s campaigning in Democratic strongholds. As Ed Kilgore noted for The New Yorker:

“As it happens, there are ten highly competitive House races in California and New York, and a Trump appearance nearby could boost GOP turnout and enhance party-organizing efforts in ways that could impact those contests.”

Michelangelo shared with me that the new 2025-2026 House is sworn in on January 3rd, whereas the presidential vote is certified on January 6th.

If Democrats control the House come January 3rd, it’s unlikely that Speaker Hakeem Jeffries would entertain Trump’s scheme on January 6th, and Republicans would lack the necessary majority anyway.

However, if Republicans maintain control, Speaker Mike Johnson, who previously rallied 147 votes against certifying the 2020 election, would likely lead the charge to declare Harris’ win as “fraudulent.”

Trump’s campaigning in states like California, Colorado, and New York could be crucial for securing Republican victories in tight House races, ensuring Johnson’s control and enabling the GOP to challenge the certification and direct the decision to the Supreme Court.

Gaining control of the Senate would also benefit this plan, as it too votes to certify the Electoral College results and is sworn in on January 3rd. A deadlock in either legislative body would prompt the Supreme Court, controlled by six Republicans, to invoke the 12th Amendment and decide the presidency.

JD Vance continues to dodge questions about Trump’s 2020 loss, echoing Trump’s baseless claims of victory and signaling a readiness to dispute this November’s results regardless of the official outcome.

With no moderates like Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, or Liz Cheney left in Congress, the GOP is perfectly positioned to execute the strategies I’ve outlined, having crafted this scenario themselves.

The most likely scenario involves local election officials stalling vote counts, challenging results, or refusing to certify them at the state level, preventing several states from certifying by January 6th, much like in the 1876 election.

This would provide a convenient pretext for the Supreme Court to step in, apply the 12th Amendment, and hand the presidency to Trump.

As Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti recently reported for The New York Times:

“The Republican Party and its conservative allies are launching an unprecedented legal assault on the American electoral system. Their concerted effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election they are preemptively claiming is rigged against former President Donald J. Trump. …
“Even if their legal challenges fail, Mr. Trump’s allies are creating pretexts to dispute the results, while empowering thousands of local election officials to disrupt the electoral process. Already, election board members in several states have moved to block certification of primary election results, including in a key swing county in Nevada last week.”

The revised Electoral Count Act sets a firm deadline of December 11th for states to certify the vote, but does not outline any consequences if states miss this deadline. In the event of disputes, confusion, or multiple lawsuits, the case would likely end up before the six Republican justices on the Supreme Court.

As the Times’ Rutenberg and Corasaniti note:

“When asked recently if his party would seek to block certification in any states this fall, Mr. Whatley, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, remained noncommittal.
‘We’re not going to cross any of those bridges right now,’ he stated.”

They couldn’t be making their intentions any clearer if they tried.

I concluded my March 2020 article by urging Democrats and the media to sound the alarm before the GOP could enact their fake elector strategy:

“Spread the word and keep repeating: The GOP plans to allege Democratic voter fraud in this election to hijack it for themselves, and they’re already priming the public for it!”

It bears repeating today.

Spread the word.