Yeah December 15 is when talks stop being a joke and move to the dark web via for browser is needed. Cause the attack need to be careful. Speaker if the house is third in line, then secretary of state.
So if an accident happened where pres,vp and speaker all were unable to serve.then Pompeo would be pres if the Dems in the Senate haven't confirmed a new secretary of state.
No matter what accepting this election results is not an option even on the state level. A new election in AZ and elsewhere is needed..
I don't think a new popular election for POTUS is a Constitutional possibility. I think this is where u/ThatOtherGuyBob is going, that instead of that the (newly elected) House would vote on it. I'm waiting for him to clarify what he means.
As I understand it the US House would not elect POTUS under this highly unlikely scenario. Each State would get one vote, determined by the State legislature. (Senate or Assembly?) Presumably that would follow party lines, but we all fear many Rs would cuck. I've seen these party lines described as anywhere from 3 States in our favor, up to about 12. Also at issue is, is it the newly elected people who would decide? I think so but am not sure.
So confusion and running out the clock is very much the strategy to get no one to do anything, and forfeit everything this Nation ever stood for without a single shot being fired. This is what the Federal Reserve Bank waa created for in 1913. They've been planning for 107 years! We have every other advantage.
SCOTUS' job is to make sure the election followed established laws.
Rudy and company are looking to get this to SCOTUS and do so with 3 or 4 different claims (ie a preponderance of evidence) that come to the conclusion that this election was systemically fraudulent. Systematic in the sense that the fraud wasn’t just isolated to a single state or 2 but, rather, it was in 6 or 7 very important swing states, with the fraud isolated to Democratic cities in those critical states.
If so, SCOTUS will have no choice to get involved and they will determine 1 or more of 2 things:
that gross voting mistakes took place on a Countrywide scale that goes against the Constitution and/or
that fraud transpired.
If 1. they’ll rule that all unconstitional ballots (mail-in, non signatory, post dated, non-observed, etc) will be removed and the states ordered to recount only those ballots that are Constitutionally valid. End result .... Trump wins in a landslide, as he was comfortably doing before all the vote shenanigans started happening.
If 2. they’ll rule the election is invalid which then invokes the 12th amendment of the Constitution whereby Congress decides the President and the Senate decides the Vice-President. The Republicans hold strong majorities in both so, End result ..... Trump would be the likely victor.
Thank you Bob! We should all understand the process here, and that necessitates everyone having the same understanding, with the same timeline.
SCOTUS ruling on if voting laws were violated is different from ruling on the Constitution like normal, or no? Are they still limited to matters of the US Constitution?
(Lots of the malfeasance isn't specified in the US Constitution, but at the State level)
IANAL but I believe this is a Constitutional challenge on the legality of the votes. The Trump legal team has stated such pretty much every single day post election. They want ONLY legal votes to count and they are readying for SCOTUS to decide that reality.
Yeah December 15 is when talks stop being a joke and move to the dark web via for browser is needed. Cause the attack need to be careful. Speaker if the house is third in line, then secretary of state.
So if an accident happened where pres,vp and speaker all were unable to serve.then Pompeo would be pres if the Dems in the Senate haven't confirmed a new secretary of state.
No matter what accepting this election results is not an option even on the state level. A new election in AZ and elsewhere is needed..
I don't think a new popular election for POTUS is a Constitutional possibility. I think this is where u/ThatOtherGuyBob is going, that instead of that the (newly elected) House would vote on it. I'm waiting for him to clarify what he means.
As I understand it the US House would not elect POTUS under this highly unlikely scenario. Each State would get one vote, determined by the State legislature. (Senate or Assembly?) Presumably that would follow party lines, but we all fear many Rs would cuck. I've seen these party lines described as anywhere from 3 States in our favor, up to about 12. Also at issue is, is it the newly elected people who would decide? I think so but am not sure.
So confusion and running out the clock is very much the strategy to get no one to do anything, and forfeit everything this Nation ever stood for without a single shot being fired. This is what the Federal Reserve Bank waa created for in 1913. They've been planning for 107 years! We have every other advantage.
The way I see it:
SCOTUS' job is to make sure the election followed established laws.
Rudy and company are looking to get this to SCOTUS and do so with 3 or 4 different claims (ie a preponderance of evidence) that come to the conclusion that this election was systemically fraudulent. Systematic in the sense that the fraud wasn’t just isolated to a single state or 2 but, rather, it was in 6 or 7 very important swing states, with the fraud isolated to Democratic cities in those critical states.
If so, SCOTUS will have no choice to get involved and they will determine 1 or more of 2 things:
If 1. they’ll rule that all unconstitional ballots (mail-in, non signatory, post dated, non-observed, etc) will be removed and the states ordered to recount only those ballots that are Constitutionally valid. End result .... Trump wins in a landslide, as he was comfortably doing before all the vote shenanigans started happening.
If 2. they’ll rule the election is invalid which then invokes the 12th amendment of the Constitution whereby Congress decides the President and the Senate decides the Vice-President. The Republicans hold strong majorities in both so, End result ..... Trump would be the likely victor.
Thank you Bob! We should all understand the process here, and that necessitates everyone having the same understanding, with the same timeline.
SCOTUS ruling on if voting laws were violated is different from ruling on the Constitution like normal, or no? Are they still limited to matters of the US Constitution?
(Lots of the malfeasance isn't specified in the US Constitution, but at the State level)
IANAL but I believe this is a Constitutional challenge on the legality of the votes. The Trump legal team has stated such pretty much every single day post election. They want ONLY legal votes to count and they are readying for SCOTUS to decide that reality.