18

It is being widely reported that My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has claimed that Trump would be reinstated on August 13. It is clear that there is no process by which this could occur, so we already know the claim is false.

What I am curious about is the specificity of the claim - what justification has Lindell given for the specific date of August 13th? Has some interpretation or misinterpretation lead to the attachment of that specific date to the reinstatement claim?

8
  • 12
    I always wonder why people mentions the fact that Mike Lindell is CEO of a pillow manufacturer, as if that gave him special knowledge or any kind of relevance when making bold claims about US politics.
    – SJuan76
    Aug 2 at 10:31
  • 9
    @SJuan76 He's not just "the CEO of a pillow manufacturer". He's the CEO of a pillow manufacturer that has used promotional codes like "FightforTrump," "Proof" and "QAnon" in its sales campaigns.
    – alephzero
    Aug 2 at 10:55
  • 11
    @SJuan76 Disambiguation... the person "best known for".
    – Anthony X
    Aug 2 at 13:06
  • 4
    Kinda surprised to see this question on politics, seems like it would be a better fit for skeptics
    – GammaGames
    Aug 2 at 14:06
  • 3
    A national sense of paraskevidekatriaphobia?
    – erickson
    Aug 2 at 17:06
27

This claim doesn't appear to have come about as some sort of misinterpretation of a constitutional process or other legislative pathway, but as a predicted response to the publication of information he claims to possess which will supposedly make President Biden & Vice President Harris' positions untenable.

Lindell first made his August 13th prediction on July 4th - at the same time he confirmed the dates he plans to host a "cyber symposium". During the event, held between August 10th and August 12th, he claims that he will reveal "the cyber data and the packet captures" - supposed proof that President Trump was the true winner of the November 2020 election. There appears to be no other attempted justification for the proposed date of August 13th except for it being the day after the conclusion of this event.

Of course, even if Biden and Harris were to resign, the presidential line of succession would mean that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would become president, not Donald Trump.

Speaking on Real America's Voice, Lindell said:

Once we have the symposium, by the night of the 12th or the morning of the 13th, if everyone has seen it including the administration that's in there now that didn't win, maybe, you know, Biden and Harris would say 'Hey, we're here to protect the country' and resign. And, you know, I'm serious!

The Sun also reported on his claims:

Lindell's speculation comes as he vows to showcase proof the evidence was stolen during his "cyber symposium" event, which is conveniently scheduled for August 10 through 12.

"It gives me hope that even your Democrats," he said. "They're seeing now firsthand what government can do and how bad socialism and communism can be."

"When we get through this and the Supreme Court pulls down this election -- like I've been telling everybody -- when they do this, it's going to be a great uniting and that gives me hope."

14
  • 9
    Does the Supreme Court have the legal authority to "pull down" (i.e., invalidate) an election? If so, who in that case would become (possibly acting) president? The regular constitutional line of succession assumes that the successors were legitimately elected or determined, so it may not apply. It would not prima facie seem unreasonable to argue that the previous president was never properly replaced, so he stays in office, in an acting position, until proper elections have been held and the new president assumes office. Aug 2 at 11:40
  • 4
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica : this would be an interesting separate question on its own.
    – vsz
    Aug 2 at 11:54
  • 5
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica: see this 1995 legal review. The upshot seems to be that the courts have an assortment of remedies for election fraud (up to and including reversing an election), but that (a) the evidentiary bar is exceedingly high, and (b) the federal system can only become involved on appeal from state supreme courts. Lindell's story-line is a bit of a crack-fantasy; it just does't work that way. Aug 2 at 14:04
  • 3
    Standard IMO advisory : The UK's Sun newspaper is a tabloid and is not generally considered an unbiased or reliable source for information. I know you're only quoting what they say Lindell said, but I would generally double check quotes the Sun reports. YMMV.
    – StephenG
    Aug 2 at 16:08
  • 14
    @StephenG I totally agree; finding a more reputable source that actually bothered to report on Lindell’s comments proved to be a bit of a challenge for some reason though :P
    – CDJB
    Aug 2 at 16:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .