Afternoon of the president very simple question would foreignpolicy figure prominently or at all in the election and are three panelists and myself included knew the answer to the question before he began. Not so today. The question we posed will american democracy survive november 3 and beyond is unanswerable. Maybe overly dramatically rendered but they are simply too many unknowns in too many uncertainties and fears about the consequences of this election. F however there also hopes. Rachel kleinfeld is written and i would put myself in agreement on this reflecting the fact that for many its hard to imagine that the u. S. Will find a way to muddle through and argued on sunday that well definitely muddle through and then some. Let me quote what he said. Meanwhile the scenarios that have been spun out in reputable publications where trump induces republican state legislatures te overrule the clear outcome in their states or militia violence intimidate the Supreme Court into vacating a blatant victory bear no relationship to the term presidency we naturally experience. Are we granting is not plotting a coup because the germ like plotting and capabilities that the conspicuously last maybe but our conviction i would argue end of faith in american story and in the american democracy will somehow magically and inexorably triumph and everything will turn out to be okay cannot and should not and never should be taken for granted. If our founders didnt do it neither did some of our greatest president s and leaders. Rarely has this republic been more stake and fewer elections have taken place in a sense of greater crisis and uncertainty not to mention the problem is mailin ballots which will constitute a huge percentage of the votes counted. I would count at least five crises interlocked, if pandemic the worst since the great influenza pandemic of 1918, an economican recession which has many economists scratching their heads with respect to structural problems and challenges in the economy, polarization and civil unrest driven biracial, class and political divisions a loss of confidence in our institutions with the post office to the census and a president the First American history who has already said repeatedly in publicly that he will not abide by the results of the election. As Barton Gellman has noted ttrump may win or lose but he will never concede and its more than just a wrister listed formulaic speech. Its a symbol that legitimizes the peaceful transfer of power in our electoral system so how bad couldal it get . Are nightmare scenarios likely . What are the core challenges to the election and do we have the institutional guardrails congress the courts the constitution to keep us on track . Rachel is pointed out how do we even begin to repair broken political culture and social and political contract and perhaps most important i think as Michael Steele has stated quoting Martin Luther king quote our life since the day we become silent about the things that mattered. So what can we do about alltt this . This challenge of this threat before it materializes if and when it does. Fortunately all is not lost. We have three extraordinary presenters to lead us out of the wilderness or at least to guide us and asked the kinds of questions that we need to ask and create some realitybased answers. I will skip their resumes and only say bam adebayo is a former and Senior Adviser to boykin project and Barton Gellman is in the atlantic and evolves in his recent article and wrote the book dark mirror Edward Snowden as was the bestselling angler and Rachel Kleinfeld senior fellow where she focuses on and i might have excels in an extraordinary fashion and writing and speaking on issues from law to security to government conflicter and postconflict and so the drill is simple. Each will president for five minutes or so beginning with a moderated round of questions and thank you and they from the audience. Ciep,. Org or tweet at us carnegie endow using the hashtag carnegie connects. So going on for too long. Michael, im going to turn it over to you. Thats no problem. Thanks, i appreciate it. Its great to be here and particularly fun to be on the panel with rachel whom aye gotten to know and work with over the past year or so and pjust i agree with everything u said, just incredible, incredible insightful talents. And great to be with you, buddy, i appreciate the work youre doing over at the atlantic. Lets get right into the questions because i think its an important one, democracy survive november 3rd. And3r the short answer is, yeah, yeah, it will [laughter] it may look a little different, but it will, you know . Its kind of ironic that ive got some of my republican friends like senator mike lee s,saying that were not a democracy, and thats not the most important thing now. [laughter] i mean, lets set that crazy awe side. But the fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is it really goes to the heart of the answer to the point, it survives if you want it to. It survives if we, the people, want it to. From dr. King which, for me, is so salient and important right now that, you know, we really become our own end when we sort of turn a blind you to things that matter. We, in this democracy, we end this grand american experiment when we decide to no longer care about the things that matter. So, folks, what matters to you . This election matters to a lot ofio americans, the outcome of this election matters to a lot of americans. But even more important than that is the various institutions that have safeguarded our rights and our liberties from our courts to our legislative branches, to our executive leaders from president to county executives. They all have played a role in securing the promise that laid out in our founding documents. You know, while the execution of those ideas and ideals have been flawed and problematic over the years, the underlying words still matter. We, the people, in order to form a morerd Perfect Union. It didnt say to form a Perfect Union or to say that we were. We are constantly striving in this republic to create a democracy, to create a vows and to give power a voice and to give power to t people. So when i look at this election, that is paramount for me. It is why i stand in opposition to few own party my own party, because i feel theyve wawalked away from those ideas d those values for the musings and the rantings of one man. George washington proved that this country was not just about one person, it was not about one individual. Donald trump, unfortunately, is trying to prove him wrong with. Wrong. And i have faith and reliance in the American People when they look at this and they see where we are and what this means to them and their families who, more importantly to the future of this country, that they will step into the power that is granted to them in those founding words, we, the people. The Court Challenges that we face right now to having a legitimate election is how we shore up those institutions. So the writings of individuals like bard and the work of individuals like rachel and a lot of smart people across this country matters now more than ever before. Their ability to coalesce and condense ideas and facts and information,ts to inform the citizenry not just about whats at stake, but the underlying truths that support whats at stake, that supports an open, free, Fair Election where we see litigation now in places like texas where the governor said, well, we only want one dropoff box in a county of 5 Million People. Okay. Let that sink in. Now, they will say, oh, no, thats not Voter Suppression at all. 5 Million People going to one location to drop off a their ballots. Yeah, thats Voter Suppression. So being informed and engaged and understanding what the thing is youre seeing and hearing mattersin at these times and whw conferrings like this thconversations like this with people way smarter than me im just a political guy. Im just a guy happened to get elected, i know a little bit about that and politics, but i rely on my secretaries of state and, you know, people who have studied this, the political scientists, the lawyers and, you know, the folks who kind of deal with the machinations of these things from a legal as well as a societal standpoint so that we anl understand exactly whats at stake. The prospects of what happens over the next few weeks leading up to the election is are ctcertainly in the referendum between the election and the inauguration itself does matter. So as ive said repeatedly on Election Night, folks, just get a tall glass of your favorite adult beverage [laughter] sit back and watch the process unfold. Stay calm. And that, and the reason i can be calm is because of the hard work and information thats being put out front to sort of help me understand exactly what to expect on that, on the back end. Yes, we have a president whos saying he wants his supporters to go be poll watchers. Well, lets be clear about that, they just cant show up and be poll watcher. Being a poll watcher is a specific regulated position in every county in this country. You have the county parties and the state parties have to identify ahead of time who those poll watchers are. So i just cant show up at my neighborhood poll and start, you know, injecting myself into that process. Understanding what can be done, what cant be done, the consequences, the violations that may occur does matter. And thats why conversations like this are so important, and im so glad to be a part of them. So ill turn it over now so smarter people can lay out more. Michael, i must say your reputation has preceded you, and youve given us all, me for sure, a boost of enthusiasm and hope. And i wouldnt rule out, by the way, the rules of politicians. Because the problem you described is not its necessary. Bart and rachel are critically important, necessary to the repair of what alls us. Yeah. But its clearly not sufficient. Committed individuals like you involved in the pluck conversationon and the political in the public conversation and the political process, thats also going to be extremely important. Thanks again. Bart gellman, over to you. Well, i find michael reassuring, yeah, and because the sort of voice of experience plus paying very, very close attention to whats happening now and look at things with a bit of perspective. Hi am, nonetheless, somewhat moe concerned, i think, about the prospects for a normal election or for getting through it intact at the far end. This is not going to be a normal election. Were already past that. Theres no chance ofdy it. We have a president who has worked hard to delegitimate the vote count, to tell people in advance that they cannot trust that the vote count will be accurate. There is almost nothing that could undermine the electoral process more than that, than to have an Authority Figure telling you9 that the one mechanism we have for deciding who rules us, who we, the people, are delegating our political power to is broken. Its filled with fraud, its rigged. Now, trump has said explicit explicitly not off the cuff, but in his prepared remarks as he accepted the republican nomination for president on august 24th, he said the only way that we can lose this election is if the vote is rigged. So he has already ruled out the possibility that we, the people, democratically by our own act or volition are going to remove hum from power. I mean, in any other country if the ruler said that, we would be veryry concerned. He also has given several versions, which weve all heard, of a refusal to guarantee that he would honor the results of tthe election and enable a peaceful transfer of power. The one that was most alarming to me is the one, and you always have to be careful about imposing too much coherence on the sort of word salad that comes out of his mouth, but i thought the message was fairly clear. He said in answer to the question about peaceful transfer of power, well, as you know, we have p a very big problem with e ballot and with ballot fraud, and i think he meant the mailin ballot. If you fix that, then therell be a peaceful and then he switched direction in his sentence. There wont be a transfer, frankly. Therell be a continuation. He is saying that if the countingin goes the only way he thinks is acceptable, then hes reelected. So i think we can safely say based on his record and based on husband actual his actual words that under no circumstances literally will trump concede defeat in this election. And that turns out to be a very big deal, because concession is the way we have ended elections in this country for well over a years. Its the moment of concession that tells you the fight is over and that as the political scientists would say it constitutes the authority of the incoming president. It is that more than any other single fact about the election because we have no umpire. This is a game in which we dont have someone who keeps track of the score, keeps track of the time, blows the whistle and say, and says, okay, well, you won and you lost. And it doesnt matter how much the players or the coaches belly ache about it, thats e the result. Its over. And everyone understands that a decisive result has been achieved. People sometimes talk about the risking with trump or the concern even though it sounds pan tsa call fantastical is that he might lose the election and refuse to leave. And, in fact, our system does know very well how to respond to that. Ou would be escorted out. He would have some e help with his luggage. The oval office would be readied for the next, the next occupant. Thats not the concern. The concern is that trump could use the power of his office and the power of his control over his followers to prevent a decisive result from being obtained, to prevent a decisive result against him. If he has we have never had a president who has said amud the count amid the count that there is fraud happening, the vote being rigged before our eyes. Andat it is unclear how well respond to that. Especially if he uses his, the power of his office, if an alternative official point of view. Not just his twitter can account, not just the words that come out when he faces a microphone, but actions of the government itself. Suppose that the Justice Department announces a fraud in progress and an immediate investigation as the vote is being counted. Suppose votes are impounded as evidence . Suppose postal inspectors find irregularities with the maul vote and suspend delivery of mail ballots . Or decide to reprocess everything to make sure that a valid postmark has been applied . Its actuallyy not the case that the Postal Service requires by regulation that a postmark be stamped on every letter. Sometimes theyre not. But election laws in some states require a postmark for mailin ballots. So suppose the postal inspectors say, well, lets make sure we reprocess all of these and that theres a ballot in postmark to comply with electoral law and by doing so takes that past the deadline. Trump has power that could be abused and might even be found to be unlawful eventually after the fact. But we dont get doothers in the election. And after the doothers in the election. Theres also what happens on election day itself. This is the first election in 40 years that is taking place without the cover sight of the oversight of a federal court over republican, quoteunquote, ballot security measures. Which is another word for Voter Suppression. Theres a from text of guarding a pretext of guarding against voter fraud. Voter fraud is almost entirely a fictional concept. It is, it is vanishingly rare. There was a good study done of one billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014, of which 31 were identified as fraudulent. 31 out of one billion. This is the scale of the problem, if you can call it a problem. It certainly has no prospect whatsoever of affecting the results of an election. But on grounds of voter fraud, on grounds of this pretext, republicans used to do things like they would have offduty police and sheriffs and former military folks and large people carrying gun withs, wearing arm bands, confronting voters, demanding to review their credentials, warning them that its a felony to vote if youre not eligible or if youre in the wrong precinct, putting up big signs, generally intimidating people of color in minority neighborhoods. And trump has, for example, called out philadelphia which happens to be a large democratic strongholdld in an essential swg state that he must win to be president. And he may be behind in the polls in pennsylvania, but if he can shave a couple of points off by intimidating voters on the day of and by causing mail hundred votes not to be mailin votes not to be counted, who knows where that goes . And then theres what michael mentioned, the whole time between election day and the swearing in of the new president. There areth milestones in that process that actually decide who the president is going to be. Ordinarily, they are mere formalities and even a wellinformed voter would be forgiven for not a knowing that december 14th is a very big day, or that january 6th is a very bug day which is when conference formally counts the votes that have been cast by the Electoral College. And there are many opportunities, as i described in my piece for the atlantic for a candidate who has influence over fellow members of his party to interfere with the normal functioning of the Electoral College or the normal functioning of thehe count. And i think if you take trump seriously as a man who will not concede and who is prepared to breach all norms and boundaries as long as he can get away with it, then the question is going to be how far the American Public will allow him to go, how far fellow members of his party will allow him to go. If you asked the average republican senator or member of the house or governor, state legislator g whether they would allow the president to steal the deection, whether they would allow the president to use his power to keep control of his office notwithstanding the votes of the people, they would all say no. And this would probably mean it. But if they are committed already, i say are, or to a narrative of voter fraud and if trump says its not that ive otbeen outvoted, its that the count has been poisoned, im not as confident that i know how they will respond. And thats the concern that we have to guard against, and thats why every citizen needs to think about whatds his or her relationship is to this election whether its as a voter, as a poll watcher, whether their job gas anything to do with securing the election. Everyone needs to be thinking about what they will do if extraconstitutional means are used to try to interfere with the actual results of the election. Well, i got up to dress this morning, michael lightened the load a tad. Bart, thats as grim a presentation im glad that you made it, reflected in your piece. Ie so that leaves Rachel Kleinfeld the task of navigating, as shes superbly equipped and able to do. So, rachel, let me turn it over to you. Thank you. This is quite a group to follow, and im going to play goldilockses here. Im going to fall in between Michael Steeles incredible optimism and barts pessimism. And its nice to play goldty locks when you work on democracies in decline. Usually im in barts shoes, so this is good for me. Lets just say, the elections happening. The elections happening right now. Theres already been 6 million votes cast, probably more at this point. Its been open here and new mexico for a week, there have been opening day challenges, but so far we are mostly muddling through. However, that doesnt mean we will continue to muddle through. And the numbers are not looking great in terms of what americans are worried about. So more in common, which is a group that works against polarization around the world, they found that 71 of americans are worried about Political Violence in this election. Thats an enormous number. A group of our best political scientists larry diamond, lee drummond, people who have been doing polling on American Attitudes for years were so concerned about the findings on violence that they actually polled all a their numbers together, all their polls together and came out with a piece about two weeks ago. I think for various reasons theirks numbers may be on the hh side, but themb numbers, even if high discounted, are pretty alarming. About one in three democrats and republicans the numbers are quite similar on both sides feel that violence is at least somewhat justified to advance our politicalif goals. And about one in five say that violencels is a lot or a great deal justified if their side loses. How did we get to this . Were extremely, were all on a tight rope right now. Were all worried because of the pandemic, people are highly stressed, people are at how many. You see this reflected in violence figures. E. So in the places that have lol lockdowns in april, march and april, you saw searches for white supremacist content rise by 21 . People dont do well when theyre socially cut i off, when theyre isolated from their normal life, when theyre seeking normal life online. And thats part of whats going on. The other part, of course, is our mess of Political Polarization across every area of our identity. The last part is what barts been talking about. We havear an extraordinary president , and i dont mean that in a great way. We have a president such as weve never had before whos o iming people for fraud. And so close to three in four tamericans feel that the longer we have to wait for results, the more likely it is that this is a fraudulent election. And only four in ten feel the government is committedgo to keeping the election secure. The federal government. And thats actually really important because there arehe things to build on. And im going to get to the happy part of this at the end. The things to build on are our local and state governments are much more trust ruand where people believe that they can do much more to affect the process, to affect their democracy. So aaron wanted us to answer how bad this can get, and im not going to share with you how bad this can get because a lot of my time is living in the nightmare scenarios that bart sketched in hishe piece. It can get very bad. America has had a civil war, severe p political release. In the 60s we had president ial assassination. I would not spend my time walking everyone through those nightmares. I think we all know those night mares. My greatest concern is this interregnum period, this period during the process of counting just after the elections are closed. Thats because theres some intense evidence that people are not going to accept that both what ive cited already, but also looking at the swing with states. So pennsylvania and wisconsin, two major swing states, they cant even start counting their absentee ballots until after polls close. Were expecting unprecedented numbers of absentee ballots. Im sorry, more than half the ballots might be absentee ballots. You cant even start counting. Its a slow process to count. The people who are counting often depending on state law have to sit on those folding metal chairs, theyre older, these are often 60 and 70yearold ladies who are working the polls the way they have been for many, many years, working 18hour days, starting to count the evening after polls close. In michigan theyre not allowed to work in shifts, it has to be the same people. This is just a setup for people makingng mistakes and getting tired and so on. With no political fault, just because theyre human beings. Michigan gave them one extra day, that was their bug change was suddenly they get one extra day to start counting these absentee votes. So we can expect theres going to be problems. One of the problems with those problems is that voting is going to be extremely lopsided. Now, it shouldnt have been. I wrote a series of articles in early in the summer with a republican who happens to be my brother about the importance of recognizing that republicans can win in absentee voting, and they have in florida and so on. Theres no reason to think of this as a partisan issue. Nevertheless, the president s proclamations throughout the summer mean that republicans are voting in person at far higher rates whereas democrats have requested absentee ballots at much higher rates especially in these swing states. So what youre likely to see is whats called a blue shift or a red mirage where numbers that look very red on Election Night slowly turn blue over time. Now, a lot of people are going to see that, and theyre going to be primed for fraud. Theyre going to say this is evidence that things are going onon. Meanwhile, theres over 200 lawsuits on the count the votes, do you count them if theyre not postmarked . The usps does not accept if theyre not postmarked, the my knew cha which might be determinative in key states. The democrats are going to see these lawsuits and say this election is being stolen. Thats the kind of thing thats goingg to lead to people on the streets. People turn to violence when they feel that normal politics is closed to them. And thehe u. S. Has muddled throh for a long time. We have a very old democracy. Its mostly bullet on norms of built on norms of forbearance, these ideas that we dont just steal elections. But we have a history of stealing elections in this country going back to the oreconstruction period. And countries that have histories of Political Violence are more at risk of future Political Violence. And we fall into that category. Our creaky system that are written in that reconstruction period right after the civil war, and they were written as great compromises. And anyone who tries to read thoseo laws can find a lot of loopholes. And if it comes to reading those laws to determining this election, theres going to be a lot of room for different sides to have different interpretations, and theres room in the law for both of those things. Ive been saying many times that were an old democracy but were also a young democracy. America only started to integrate the africanamerican vote in the mid 1960s, and it was a hell of a fight. That was m our last big moment f Major Political violation. And then we turned violence. And then we turned to all sorts of techniques the try to keep that vote down again. And now, as bath was saying, those as bart was saying, that vote can be suppressed more openly, it might be. Though weve muddled through, weve middled through in a way thats not the best from a democracy that should be representing all of its people. And were at a point right now where the stakes are quite high for many people who feel that theyre losing their legacy of privilege. So ill just end with the upbeat part of this which is if you have a vote that is very, very decisive, we should not get to some of these nightmare scenarios. And the best way to make the vote deseussive is so to vote early where you can. By absentee or in person if you can do that. Most of the problems with the vote is when youre voting right near the end, when youre going late, that kind of thing. Ndwe should also keep some perspective. Violence is incredibly low right now. Were at 1960s level of violence, and Political Violence tracks criminal violence. Htese are very tightly related, because theyre related to trusting government and our fellow people. So there is a low level of violence, and even with all the of the protests this summer, all of the mayhem this summer in many, many cities, the National Guard coming in and so on, we had very little violence this summer. And i think thats worth end keeping innc mind. Its nothing like when i was growing up in the 80s and early 90s. We can speak to our own side. This violence problem is a problem of both sides, normalizing violence, and both sides are much more credible in speaking to their own sides about the gigantic body of [inaudible] t it might make you feel good, it doesnt work for anything that anyone is trying to achieve. And while both sides are justifying it, it is extremely lopsided in which leaders are anjustifying it. And here republicans need to speak to their own side. Theres just no way around it. The Republican Leaders need to say that violence is not an acceptable way to win an election. Weve seen what happens in other countries when a nondemocratic party exists in polity, its not good. And the last. Thing is we all is have to take a deep breath. I like michaels favorite adult beverage. I will be drinking straight white house key. [laughter] which is my his key. Which is my faith adult beverage favorite adult beverage and is Strong Enough for that night. This is going to to be an election week, maybe two weeks. Its going the take a long time to count. Dont forget, al franken took months before he was seated in his senate race. This is not incredibly unusual. And taking a breath at that point and understanding that the count is just going to take time and it doesnt mean anyones stealing anything is actually how our process is supposed to work. Well go quite a long way to forestalling violence afterwards. Rachel, you succeeded in navigating between michael and bart. I was going to ask as my first question how to avoid an election season. I mean, gore v. Bush went 36 days. Two days before the Electoral College convened to vote december 12th. Supreme court rule. But i want to get to the institutional guidelines. I mean, how looking back over the last several years, quickly, how well do you think the executive branch under this president has been constrained . How well has the media, congress, the courts, Public Opinion done in constraining, and how bart argues there are no adjudicators. Theres really no one or no thing that we can rely on in this interregnum period thats going to help save us. But are there institutional guidelines that could actually function during this period . Congress, the counts, guidance from the constitution from beating up Public Opinion . Have we nothing to fall back on in the event of barts alltooreal and very grim scenarios play out . Let me begin with you since you at institutional guardrails a lot. Sure. I mean, this is a glass half empty Glass Half Full kind of question. And i must saw it depends on how i wake up that morning, which im at on any given day. You would say that america has done a remarkable job actually so far constraining our leader with a fairly imperial president su. Yes. Our presidency has grown in power over the years. Our congress has been giving up its power for 25 years. Its really been on the back foot. Our Political Parties have been weak withinning over the years, so typically the Republican Party you would say has outsourced its get out the vote operation to churches, outsourced communications to talk radio and folk, outsources funding mechanisms to these major groups. Its not surprising that a populist authoritarian was able to take it over. You see that in other countries with weak parties. So given how weak our institutions have been, weve actually done a pretty good job of constraining some of the worst of what could have been. Were not doing things that weve done in the past. We p havent interred major gros of citizens within our country. We havent removed Voting Rights altogether from major groups of citizens. I mean, our country has a history of doing these things. We havent done those things under this president , so thats good. We also have some institutions that are still quite strong. So i do a lot of work with the military. Our military is really a bastion of apolitical, nonpartisan action. They do not want to be political, they do not want to be pretty sized. Theyre concerned about politicized. Theyre concerned about how this president might use them especially given what happened this summer in lafayette square, quite concerned, and i think theyre going to do everything they can to make sure they are notan politicized. So i think theres a lot that we can be proud of and glad of thats happened so far. On the other hand, our institutions are weaker than they used to be, and i think the weakest right now and the one that im most concerned about is the courts. Wheneverut you have populist authoritarians, you see them goingne after two institutions first. One is the doj with, the tosecutorial agencies, and the second is the courts. They want to weaken those things because when those entities are strong, its the most constraining on what they can do. And what weve seen is a Republican Party thats been so desirous of power through the courts that theyve been okay with going along with that weakening, and thats really concerning because we need both parties to uphold the nature of apolitical courts. Thats hard in america. Our courts are specifically political in america. Its very unusual for other esuntries to have that. And right now the level of politicization thats happening at the Supreme Court level particularly could destroy our oourts, could destroy our ability to trust them. And then were really up a creek. Thanks. You know, im watching my phone ihere, it says New York Times s reporting nine minutes ago that virginias online voter portal went down today. The final day to register before the election after an electronic fiber cable severed. Interesting. Michael, let me segway to you, pick up on rachels point. Were watching confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court justice. Yeah, we there is precedent for adjudication, to use barts term, through the courts in an american election. How do you want to share with us any views you have on the Supreme Courts role in this . Potential role . Yeah. The Supreme Courts role is, and i think the justices would tell you this, is a limited role. I mean, they are the haas, the last stop [laughter] that you get to. Not just because its the supremeat court, but because the way the electoral process is set up, it is designed actually to try try to avoid adjudication to the Supreme Court. And folks look back at the 2000 bush v. Gore election, and what they miss in that process was the miscalculation of the democrats which triggered the Supreme Court action. So the thing to keep in mind that a lot of people dont know about how we elect the president is in that interregnum there is a constitutional process. There is a clock that automatically kicks on. The president , the challenger to the president , the congress, they cant stop that clock reless there is aweey firmtive congressional affirmative congressional action to do so, and thats just not likely to happen whereby at a certain date electors have to meet [laughter] at a certain date. The congress has to confirm the decision of the electors. So theres a process. So when youou go back and look t that election, what you realize isle that the fundamental questn that the gore team a had before them, they took door number two instead of door number one. [laughter] you know . The question was door number one, do we do a statewide recount, or door number two, do we do a local, you know, recount of those counties we have in question. And the choice they made was such that it automatically triggered the clock. And so understanding how the process works, and the Supreme Court had to step in at that point. They had to make a decision. Everyone says, oh, the Supreme Court, you know, weighed in favor of bush. Now, they weighed in fair of the votes that had been counted based on the process chosen by the democrats at that time. So the court can only go by the votes that were counted up to that point. Now, a statewide recount would have starteded a different time, different outcome, and the courts decision probably would have been a differentnt one. But because of the choices that the political establishment made in a legal context, the court cant be concerned about it. The court can only go by what the constitution requires it does at this particular moment, and i think that will be the case here as well. So if youre looking at this nomination process, the political argument that somehow Coney Barrett is going to be there to be a hammer to put President Trump over the finish lewin, thats actually a rather bogus argument when you consider the way this process is constitutionally mandated to unfold. But i have less concerns about that and more faith in, to the point that rachel made, about the process doing what its supposed to do the withdraw its supposed to do it. The way its supposed to do it. Right. Let me drill down with you, bart, on the interregnum. Its one thing not to concede and to play games with the media. Its another thing to actually have in plus a fullfledged strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the Election Results through a series of actions, direct actions including summoning your followers into the street. Bart, you interviewed in your article a number of republican officials, and, michael, you are a republican. Albeit youve obviously created a certain measure of distance from those who are republicans today. Im a slightly different brand. Right, exactly. Well get to that in a minute. But first to you, bart. Is there a strategy, in your view, based on your interviews, is there an actual strategy in place . I think theres a point that russ doubtat is that how you say his name . Yes, i googled it, its doubthat. He has a point that its hard to refute plots and strategies of this president because he is so impulsive and fixed in the moment. But he has people for that. And there are what i know if my reporting is there are discussions of contingency plans in which the Trump Campaign would seek to bypass the results of popular elections state by state in key swing states. They could call upon republican legislatures to take back their power under article ii of the constitutionon to decide how the electors are assigned in their states. That is to say we are awe customed to electors corresponding to the votes, but, in fact, the constitution says istate legislatures can [inaudible] any way they like. Le c and if he convinces his political allies that the vote has beenha hopelessly compromis, that no one even knows what the result is because theres been so much fraud and so much chaos that he himself has helped create, and if the delays in the count are significant enough when the deadline is approaching for the Electoral College and he asks the legislators to appoint electors who are committed to trump and they would say, no, were overriding the poplar vote, but the the popular vote, and were going to have to give our best understanding of who won in our state. Now, michael mentioned bush v. Gore in 2000. One of those things that hardly anyone remembers about that is that on the same day that the Supreme Court handed down its decision, which was december 12th, the florida legislature, the Florida House had already voted and the senate was about to vote to appoint republican electors even though the litigation was underway. To send to the Electoral Collegeng a slate of electors committed to bush using their legislative power under the constitution to make sure that bush got those votes. And its not the Supreme Court that ended that election. It is what happened the day after, which is on december 13th when gore came out and conceded. Because gore could have continued to fight in the Electoral College. And if he hador done so, the fom of decision would have been a joint session of congress overseen by the president of the senate who was al gore. And if that happens this year, the president of the senate will be mike pence. Right. Thats one of the reasons for concern right. Iha understand. I agree. Michael, is it too, is it too untethered a thought from reality to believe that republicans, as they currently list now republican elite, its a fantasy i have, forgive me that they would go to the white house at some point during this period of contestation if it was clear that the president was, had a determined, willful strategy to steal an election, to basically say thats it, we will no longer support you . Its not your party anymore for any number of reasons. But is that thought simply based on the behavior of rerepublicans over the last four years, is there no guardrail that exists among the republican elite . Bob woodward said last week that there are only two son con restaurants on trump. He cited the white house staff, which was an egg intrigue intriguing comment. And the second was republicans. Yeah. I think that theres still some validity to that, despite what weve seen in behavior from Republican Leaders over the last three years. Certainly, there are some members in the senate, for reexample, who are hypocriteicay sycophantic and cant be helped and no cure for that at this point. And nor should we try to cure them because thats who they are. But i think, by and large, what youre looking at particularly given the impact that the president is having op downballot elections, in january of this year the senate was not in play for democrats. Three weeks out from the election, right now there are at least four seats and possibly six seats that are not just on the bubble, but are problematic for republicans. And if you look at if you just want an indication of just how bad it is, Lindsey Graham is tied for his reelection seat in south carolina. Let me repeat, south carolina. A bastion of blue statism no bastion of blue statism. Inand if you dont believe me about south carolina, then look at what senator cornyn is going through in the state of texas. Yes, i said texas, where the president himself is fairly 13 points ahead depending on the poll in texas. So what you have seen over the last few weeks and certainly in the last three or four days is Mitch Mcconnell taking a much more handsoff approach to the president ial outcome ofo this election. And is more than aware of the senatorial impact this election tiuld have on his leadership of the senate and what it may mean for republicans who want to be competitive in a biden administration. And so i think that, yeah, there would be some degree of a voice inside the ear of the president from Republican Leaders who would be saying let it go. This is disruptive to the country. We cant afford this kind because there is no political upside at that point. Back to barts point about, you know, the violence, that if that occurs, the Largest Group blamed for that will not be democrats, but republicans. You can talk about antifa all dayan long, but all youd have o do is look at the president s own words. I want my voters to go to the polls. I want them to be disruptive. The president giving his blessing to white nationalism. Thats a narrative that the people themselves have seen and heard from the president s own lip ares. And republicans lips. And republicans would be loathe to sort of embrace that narrative on the other side of this election for fear that those seats that they can try to hold on to, they wont be able to. So thats where youve seen the distancing now, and the president will largely, i think to some degree, be on his own if he tries to stoke that kind of, you know, militant response to the election on Election Night. Ill tell you one thing, if i could add to that, aaron, theres an important guardrail, believe it or not, in fox news. Its going to be a big question on Election Night and afterwards. Fox news has a very professional decision desk of poll thesters, political scientists pollsters, political scientists, and they will know the real truth. The scenario that is most concerning, as rachel said, is a red mirage in which because trumps vote is constituted in the inperson votes, people who say they plan to vote in person by one poll break almost 2 to 1 for trump yep. Nationally. Its a fascinating point. So if we have what appears to be a Trump Victory on Election Night and we night not. If biden ones florida, florida counts early right. Theres not going to be any blue shift in florida, we will know by late Election Night who is very likely to win florida. If biden wins florida and most paths for trump are closed at that point to victory, then youre going to see the decision desks at nbc and abc and cbs and the Associated Press are going to be saying a this election is looking veryoi strong for biden, it appears that hes on the verge of victory. Yeah. Will fox go along with trumps claims of victory nonetheless, or will it listen to its decision desk . [inaudible conversations] okay. The future. Its funny how many of her not funny, i think its very instructive, back to michaels points about aspirations and hope. Rachel, you are the prognosticator, and id like to turn this question to you. We have two questions to do with the future. One from lord dinsdale, what are the three key reforms that are needed to improve american democracy before. Gary officer asks a similar question on youtube. What gives you hope . With respect to the future of american democracy. I know its a big question. Weve got about six minutes left. But take a minute or two, if you might, to its a critically important one. A lot gives me hope, actually. So, first of all, people are engaged. A lot of people took democracy for granted for many, many years. 40 of our public who doesnt vote at all. The amount of political engagement, the number of people who no longer take democracy for granted, who care about these election laws, thats good. And we can build on that. I think there are changes that can be made that are starting to be made that would really be helping. Rank Choice Voting is one of the things i talk about a lot. It sounds very wonk key, but it just means you rank your favorite people to elect, rank your favorite flavors at an ice cream shot. Maine voted for it, new york city voted for it, we use it here in santa fe. Different flavors of Political Parties can exist, and as michael was saying, he is e a different flavor of republican from the man in our white house, and thats good. We need a Progressive Left and a working class left. We need a conservative business right and we need a socially conservative right. These people exist in america, and they deserve representation. Rank Choice Voting allows them to have thatot representation, d its a reform that would enable the parties, i think, to represent better while keeping some of the worst of the worst that were seeing from ruing to the top of the party rising to the top the of the party so that everyone can pull together andog one. I also see real hope in the number of good people running. Particularly in the last election cycle, but also in this election cycle. You had unprecedented numbers of women coming out to run, really good candidates. We denigrate politicians in our democracy, you know . We like to say that iowa all corrupt, theyre all bad, theyre all in it for themselves. Who else is going to run your democracy . Were actually a republic. Were not a direct democracy. We need to elect someone, and its a really rotten job. My father used to say if anyone tells you you should be a senator, theyre not your friend. You have to raise a huge apt of money, you spend a huge amount of time calling people and asking for dollars, fly back and forth constantly across the country back to your home astronaut. It is a tough job. To your home state. And then on top of it people say youre corrupt and rotten. Maybe some are, but the number of good people that are running is really important and starting to recognize them for the patriots that they often can be and are is important. So a lot gives me hope, but a lot of things that we can start doing now that we care also gives me hope. Id raise the Electoral College, but it would require at least two or three more sessions at least. I think it iss critically important reform. I think weve almost reached the end of our session. I want to, i want to Say Something and call it a Public Service announcement. For most of my career, i focused on Foreign Policy, ignoring the domestic realities and the political culture here at how many. I think leaving government in 03, its been 17 years now, ive come more in focus on the importance of the republic and what goes on here. And i just want to close with a quote from lincoln who was 28 at the time. He addressed the young mens lie see yum in 1838, and heres what lincoln had to say. The Foreign Policy reference is important. Heres what lincoln said at the age of 28. At what point, lincoln says, should we expect the approach of danger . By what means should we fortify against it . Should we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow . Never. All the armies of europe, asia and africa combined with all their treasure of the earth, our own accepted, in their military chest with a bone part for commander bonaparte could not make a track on the blue ridge in the trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected . I answer,oa if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, lincoln argued at the age of 28, we must ourselves be its author and its finisher. As a nation of free men, writing in the 19th century, of course, we must love through all time live through all time or die by suicide. I want to thank bart, michael and rachel. Its a complicated subject. Youve unpacked it, youve unwinded it, and youve done so with real care, real diligence. And the future of our republic depends on people like you. Vote. Two things. Vote and, please, tune in to the next session of carnegie connects. Thank you so much, michael, rachel and bart. Thank you. The Senate Judiciary committee has concluded the confirmation hearings for amy Coney Barrett. Today the senators met to consider her nomination and hear from outside witnesses who support or oppose judge barretts confirmation. You can watch our coverage tonight starting at eight eastern on cspan. You can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen with our free cspan radio app. Cspans washington journal, every day we take your calls live on the a air on the news of the day, and well discuss policy issues that impact you with. Coming up friday morning, a discussion of campaign 2020 and the nomination of judge amy Coney Barrett to the u. S. Supreme court with mike davis, founder and president of the article iii project. And then well talk about the Affordable Care act and campaign 2020 with lets lu dock of leslie dock of the group, protect our care. Watch cspans washington journal live at seven eastern friday morning. And be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and betweens. American history tv on cspan3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. Every weekend. Coming up this weekend, saturday at 5 p. M. Eastern, author neil bass come talks about his book, hunting eichmann, on the capture of adolf eichmann. And at 6 p. M. On the civil war, a look at black prisoners of war in the confederacy. Postdoctoral fellow at the Virginia Center for civil war studies. On sunday, the final debate between Ronald Reagan and walter mondale. Then at i 10 30 a. M. Eastern, the second debate between george h. W. Bush and michael due cac cuts. And at 4 p. M. Eastern on real america, john. If kennedys 1960 speech on church and state followed but reagans, the myths of the Great Society speech. Watch American History tv this weekend on cspan3. Next, a group of law professors and scholars discuss free speech and First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court. The event, hosted by the cato institute, is an hour. Good afternoon, good morning and welcome to the virtual cato itself. My name isst ilya shapiro, im e director for constitutional studies at cato e and the author of the new book, supreme disorder judicial nominations and the politics of americas highest court. As it relates to that, im glad that everyones taking a break from the barrett confirmation hearing this morning. If you didnt watch, i envy you. There was really nothing new. The republicans and democrats playedhe