Supposedly principled Anti-Trump elector Christopher Suprun has a surprisingly shady past
Although Donald Trump won the November 9 election, obtaining 306 electoral college votes to Hillary’s 232, it is not currently guaranteed that he will become the 45th President of the US.1 The danger against Trump assuming the Presidency is not limited to the possibility of assassination but also to the set up of the American electoral system.
The US electoral college
In the US a President is not elected based on the national popular vote. If it was then Hillary would have won the election as 65,844,594 people voted for her compared to 62,979,616 for Trump.2 Instead, the electoral college is utilized, in which 538 electors, appointed proportionally from each of the 50 states vote on the candidate. The more populous the state the more electoral votes its has. States such as California, Texas and New York have 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes compared to 3 for states such as Delaware, Wyoming and Vermont.
By tradition, electors from a particular state will unanimously vote for which ever candidate won the popular vote in that state. In other words, at the state level, the American electoral system, is winner takes all (with the exception of Maine). For example in California Hillary had almost 4.3 million more votes than Trump thereby winning all of the state’s 55 electors. In Wisconsin the race was much tighter, with Trump winning by only 22,748 votes, (~0.8% of the total state vote), yet he still won all of the state’s 10 electoral votes.
One of the intentions of the US electoral college was to prevent larger more populous states, such as California, Texas and New York, from dominating the more numerous, but less populous, other states. In the case of the 2016 elections, while Trump had 2.9 million fewer votes than Hillary, Trump won 30 states compared to Hillary’s 20.
However, in some states the electors are not legally bound to vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote, and can, if they so chose, vote for who ever they want. Although instances of such rogue behavior dot the annals of US electoral history, faithless electors as they are known as, have never affected the outcome of any US election as they usually have been singular protest votes.3
To be elected US President a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. Trump is projected to have 306 votes, but this projection is based on the previously valid assumption, that all of the electors that are suppose to vote for him, will in fact do so. But if 37 of such electors do not vote for Trump, then he falls under the threshold, and the US will be in a historically unprecedented constitutional crisis. Under such conditions Hillary could very well become President via either winning the electoral vote or in the case of a tie a congressional vote.4
Under normal circumstances the electoral selection of Donald Trump as President would be a mere formality, yet the 2016 election has been anything but normal. Suggesting that it is still a possibility that Trump will not become President, Michael Moore recently stated:5 “Would you not agree, regardless what side of the political fence you’re on, this has been the craziest election year. Nothing anyone predicted has happened — the opposite has happened. So is it possible, just possible, that in these next six weeks, something else might happen — something crazy, something we’re not expecting?”
Well, maybe that “something crazy” may pertain to the electoral college and maybe, for the first time in American history a US Presidential election will be decided by the actions of faithless electors.
The campaign against electors to not vote for Trump
This is not just some paranoid right wing conspiracy, there seems to be a real possibility, however remote, of this actually occurring. There are reports that Republican electors are being inundated with e-mails trying to convince them to change their vote from Trump to Hillary. In some cases they are receiving deaths.6
Bow tie wearing Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig is soliciting “free legal aid to electors who change their vote.” A few days ago Lessig claims that he has been contacted by 20 Republican electors “seriously considering flipping their vote,” but he has subsequently downplayed the likelihood that enough electors will flip there vote to stop Trump.7
Christine Pelosi, the daughter of Senior Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, is also leading a group of electors, who are demanding that they be brief on intelligence pertaining to Russia’s supposed hacking of the election.8 Basically Pelosi and company want verification that Russia hacked the election so as to make Trump’s victory illegitimate and thus providing moral justification for electors to switch their vote against Trump.
A group of Hollywood celebrities calling themselves Unite for America, have released a video message to Republican electors admonishing them to vote their conscience.9 The celebrities speaking repeated state “I am not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton,” but for “any eligible person.” Martin Sheen, the one time fictitious US President on the TV show The West Wing, gives a little lesson on the purpose of the electoral college which the founding fathers created “to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is ‘to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Characterizing Trump as unqualified, unstable and unrespectful of the Constitution, the thespians finish by stating “You have the position, the authority, and the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero who changed the course of history.” Clearly the desire of Unite for America is for at least 37 Republican electors to not vote for Trump and for the Congress to decide who should be President.
Christopher Suprun the faithless elector
Not only is the electoral college experiencing coercion and propaganda from without to change their vote, but there are some electors stating they cannot vote for Trump. The poster boy of the anti-Trump faithless electors is Christopher Suprun, a firefighter from Texas. Suprun made his case against Trump in an New York Times op-ed piece, in which he described the President-elect as inexperienced, unqualified, having a poor demeanor and a divisive demagogue who is beholden to foreign interests.10 He ended his brief piece by writing:
“Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio [It baffles me why establishment Republicans are obsessed with Kasich]. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.”
Suprun is presenting himself as a principled man unable to go against his conscience, who is merely preforming his sworn duty to America’s storied civic structures against, in his view, the dangerous demagogic and unqualified threat of Donald Trump. One could argue that even if disagreeing with Suprun’s protestations against Trump, that at the least his convictions to vote his conscience so as to protect the maintain the seat of the Presidency is to be respected.
The dirt on Suprun is revealled
Well, that is one way to look at the situation, but in my view Suprun’s smugness, his shrouding himself in the US Constitution and his dogmatic aversion towards Trump and much of his criticisms towards the latter being unfounded led me to be quite suspicious of his motivations. Quite honestly I never bought his ‘act’ and always suspected that his stance against Trump was motivated not by civic principles and honest, albeit possibly misplaced, convictions, but by a desire for monetary gain and attention.
My suspicions have not yet been directly confirmed, but evidence has recently been released indicating that Suprun, for being such a man of principle, has a rather disreputable past. As Zerohedge reports “GotNews’ research into Suprun’s bizarre and unexplained flip-flop against President-elect Donald J. Trump turned up Ashley Madison data, damning bankruptcy records, and a series of P.O. boxes and what appears to be an association with a payday loan scam site.”11 For those unaware Ashley Madison is an online service for married people looking to find a partner to cheat on their spouse with. What appears to be Suprun’s credit card data has been found in the Ashley Madison hacked leaks. It is also interesting to note that Suprun is a client of a PR firm operated by Van Jones, a left-wing, borderline communist, CNN commentator.
It gets even better. In his op-ed piece Suprun mentions “Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation.” According to him he responded to the attack at the Pentagon with the Manassas Park fire department of Virginia. Well it turns out that the Manassas Park fire department was not among those who responded to the Pentagon attack as revealed by an investigation by WFAA local news.12 It appears that Suprun made the whole story up.
So here we have a man, who appears to have embellished his past to increase his credibility, who is involved in suspicious financial activity, is connected to leftists and who was looking for a mistress online, while married with three children, and this man thinks Trump is unqualified to be President. In reality I think Suprun is unqualified to be an elector.
Suprun, and the others who support the faithless elector campaign, frequently adduces Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 68 as support for his stance.[13,14] Yet it is ironic that Hamilton also mentions the need to not have “appointment of the President to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes,” and that the electors should be “free from any sinister bias.” In effect the electors themselves must be carefully chosen to avoid the aforementioned vices.
One wonders with Suprun background, due to his connections to Van Jones, is he free of “sinister bias”? Or with his shady prior financial dealings is he above prostituting his vote? Relating to the last question there are unsubstantiated claims that George Soros is attempting to bribe electors to not vote for Trump.15 Of course this is speculation, but is it not plausible that Suprun may be taking bribes to not vote for Trump? Maybe in due time more dirt will be revealed on this possibility.
Ultimately it is understandable to not be a fan of Donald Trump and to be disappointed at the prospects of him becoming President of the US. And it is not altogether unjustified for an elector to go against the popular vote, where state law allows it, if they truly believe the popular choice is some type of out of control tyrant. But it is one thing to argue against Trump’s politics and quite another claim he is a dangerous lunatic. It does appear that much of the objections against Trump is borderline hysteria. To those freaking out, Trump may be imperfect but he is not the second coming of Hitler or even Mussolini, so calm down.
It is also interesting to note that some of the most vociferous opponents of Trump, such as Suprun, shout their denouncements atop of their principled high horses. Yet, as illustrated by Suprun’s improprieties, these people are no better than what they think Trump to be, and usually are far worse. They are hypocrites spouting bullshit, and whether they know it or not, they are furthering what looks like an establishment coup attempt against Trump,16 an outcome that Hamilton intended the electoral college to defend against.
On tomorrow December 19, the electoral college casts its votes, and we will finally know whether Trump is confirmed as President-elect or whether the US will descend into a Constitutional crises in which an actual civil war is a possible outcome (although the results of the vote may not be published until a some time later). Hopefully Suprun will take the high road, if he is capable of such an act, and if he is so put off by Trump, he can imitate Art Sisneros, a fellow anti-Trump elector who decided to resign as a protest.17
But regardless of what Suprun does, what is much more important is what the other Republican electors do. Will the vast majority of them fulfill their implied duty and cast their votes for Trump or will enough of them (37) be swayed by the threats and propaganda and not vote for Trump? Hopefully the recent revelations pertaining to Suprun, the exposing of his hypocrisy, will help to discredit the anti-Trump electoral campaign in the eyes of the other electors. We will soon find out.
References and Notes
 The numbers used in this post pertaining to the US election can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
 I personally believe that in reality Trump probably won the popular vote. First of all there were a substantial number of illegals who voted, and it isn’t difficult to guess who they voted for en mass. The only question is how many, with some believing up to 3 million did so (https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/illegal-immigrants-3-million-votes/). Secondly I suspect there was a significant amount of voter fraud occurring, largely favoring Hillary, in which dead people voted (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/pew-center-1-8-million-dead-people-voter-rolls-2-75-million-registered-two-states/), or people voted multiple times, or through electronic manipulation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ezmpqwVEnM). However, I must admit that I am rather susceptible to the fake news epidemic besetting us.
 I know that people will immediately argue that since the Republicans are in the majority in the Congress, that Trump is ensured the Presidency in case of an electoral tie. However, based on the behavior of Republicans such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John McCain among others, it would not surprise me in the least if such Republicans would actually prefer Hillary over Trump and thereby vote for the former.
 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/harvard-professor-says-hes-rallied-nearly-enough-gop-electors-block-trump , http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/harvard-professor-admits-his-efforts-turn-electoral-college-against-trump-have-faile
 The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Paper No. 68 by Alexander Hamilton.
 At one level Suprun’s arguments are consistent with Hamilton’s, who basically argues that due to the importance and power of the office of the Presidency, that special precautions must be taken in the selection of its occupant, beyond the mere will of the people who may be ignorant on the matters necessary to make a qualified decision. Thus “a small number of persons [the electoral college], selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation [i.e. selecting a qualified President].” In effect Hamilton is advocating that the electors should have the power to select a fit candidate, even if the fittest candidate did not win the popular vote.