Not my theory, copied:
<<<Trump is supposedly trying to file in Florida to run for office there next year I think as a state senator (don't recall).
But this person said," Trump will win that seat, the Republicans will have the majority again next year, then Trump will become Speaker of the house, they will impeach both Biden and Harris making Trump president for Biden's remaining term and still be eligible to run for president in 2024".
Ultimate chess move?>>>
It is fun to think about, but the cuck GOP would never let Trump be Speaker even if the Senator scenario happened (which it won’t).
Plus, I agree Biden-Harris both should be impeached, but what would be the high crime that will have evidence presented in which REMOVAL AFTER IMPEACHMENT would need to happen?
See? It is just fun to think about is all, but ultimately more dumb hopium.
There seems to be pile of people circling around things that are evidence ... but would get thrown out at trials if just thrown out there.
The entire "hopium circus" has said a laundry list of things that are defamatory/libel/slander ... if not true. And there's been very little pushback from the objects of said libel. Dominion is suing (Lin Wood, IRC?), but scarce legal pushback the problem people.
This strongly implies to me that there is something true in the core.
A key legal bit about "Suing for libel", etc, is "Discovery". IANAL, but basically it's a two-edged sword - Lin Wood gets some of Dominion's relevant files if Dominion is suing him . So people really don't like suing for libel/slander if they honestly think the other side has actual proof of the claim.
The trick is (as I understand it, and IANAL!) that there's some sort of things that are valid "for your defense in a libel suit" that are not always valid evidence when used pro-actively to charge a crime directly. "I was on your property filming illegally/without permission/violating confidentiality/something".
And they can have a cascading effect if there's more than one "thing". "Well, now a crime has been alleged and is backed up by these three bits, enter full investigation -> hey look, all this other stuff is now admissible..."
But you can never, ever start the investigation from something inadmissible. Anything discovered 'because of' that is "Fruit of the poison tree" -> inadmissible just because the reason you looked for it was inadmissible.
Yes, long pile of blather. But there's been an unending frenzy for years at this point, and the general failure to sue people into oblivion in all directions is the most baffling part to me. Yes, they're 'public figures' and need to prove 'actual malice' - but there's certainly seems to be plenty of relevant public data for some of them.