YOU CAN’T MEET PRESIDENT MAHAMA AND REMAIN THE SAME – LAWYER MAURICE AMPAW
Ghanaian lawyer Maurice Ampaw has stated that a personal encounter with President John Dramani Mahama has the power to change a person’s thinking and outlook.
Speaking during a media discussion on leadership and national governance, Ampaw argued that meeting President Mahama is not an ordinary experience. According to him, the President’s personality, calm nature, and leadership approach have a strong influence on people.
“You can’t meet President Mahama and remain the same,” he declared, noting that many people leave such meetings with a different perspective on issues.
Ampaw explained that President Mahama is a leader who has been through different phases of Ghana’s political journey, from serving as a Member of Parliament, Vice President, President, opposition leader and now President again. He believes that wealth of experience reflects in his conversations and interactions.
He noted that conversations with national leaders play an important role in shaping how citizens understand governance, democracy and national development. For him, President Mahama possesses that rare ability to connect, listen and engage in a way that makes people rethink their positions.
The lawyer further suggested that such encounters can even affect political loyalties. He said that depending on a person’s beliefs, background and experiences, a meeting with the President could cause them to reconsider their political stance or become more open-minded about national issues.
His comments have since generated varied reactions. While some members of the public and political observers agree that President Mahama’s stature and presence naturally command influence, others believe Lawyer Ampaw’s comments are exaggerated and amount to political praise-singing.
Nevertheless, the discussion has once again brought to the fore the role of personality and character in Ghanaian politics and how personal interactions with leaders can shape public opinion.
HOW SENATE DEMOCRATS CAN STOP TRUMP FROM STEALING THE MIDTERMS
A new analysis is warning that Donald Trump could attempt to use congressional procedure to hold onto a Republican majority in Congress after the November midterm elections, even if voters elect a Democratic House.
The report notes that after losing his mail-in ballot lawsuit, Trump may turn to more extreme tactics. The strategy, similar to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, would involve creating doubt about close House races, challenging Democratic wins, and having the House itself decide who gets seated.
Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, each chamber of Congress is the “Judge of the Elections Returns of its own Members.” This means that regardless of what state officials or courts declare, Congress has the final say on who is sworn in.
For such a plan to work, Republicans would need to start the new Congress on January 3, 2027, with a slim initial majority. That majority would then control the decisions on disputed seats.
The process centers on the Clerk of the House, who is required by federal law to prepare a roll of Representatives-elect. Legal analysts like Jeffrey Toobin and retired Judge Michael Luttig have warned that a loyalist clerk could produce a biased roll. Others fear the statute itself creates room for dispute, as it says candidates should only be listed if their credentials show they were “regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their states.
This could be exploited if there are ongoing disputes over alleged fraud, delayed certifications by pro-Trump local officials, or even federal interference such as ballot seizures. Red states and counties that are sympathetic to Trump could refuse to certify Democratic wins, citing disparities with Department of Homeland Security voter lists, thereby creating confusion and a justification for a House election contest.
The analysis also notes that the current House could hold preliminary votes on pending election contests before January 3, and direct its Clerk to prepare the roll accordingly. Since the Clerk is an officer of the House and must follow its direction, this could predetermine the initial majority.
However, the report argues that Senate Democrats have a powerful counter-move that has been largely overlooked.
Unlike the House, the Senate is a continuing body. On January 3, 2027, 65 senators whose terms do not end will remain in office. Of those, 32 are Democrats plus 2 Independents who caucus with them (Bernie Sanders and Angus King), compared to only 31 Republicans. This gives Democrats an initial 34-31 majority in the Senate.
If House Republicans attempt to steal seats through bogus election contests, Senate Democrats could retaliate in kind by refusing to seat some Republican Senators-elect who won close races, citing similar fraud claims.
Under Senate procedure, as documented in Riddick’s Senate Procedure, after a Senator-elect’s name is called, a motion to refer his credentials to a committee and deny him the right to take the oath is privileged and takes precedence over swearing him in.
Vice President J.D. Vance, as President of the Senate, would preside over the swearing-in, but he could be blocked if a seated Democrat challenges a Republican Senator-elect. Any attempt by Vance to overrule the challenge could be appealed and decided by the sitting Democratic majority. A Republican filibuster would not prevent Democrats from retaining control of the chamber during this process.
The analysis warns that the U.S. could face a doomsday standoff between the House and Senate over who the true election winners are — something not seen since the Civil War era. But the author, election law litigator David F. Walbert, argues that the threat of such a standoff might deter Republicans from attempting to subvert the House elections in the first place.
Walbert, who has litigated dozens of election cases before the Supreme Court and recently authored _Stealing Elections, American Style_, concludes that very little is inconceivable with Trump in control of the Republican Party and willing to undermine democratic processes to retain power.
