So without the Courts on our side, the running plan seems to be to throw our own electors at Congress in January and get Pence to choose to recognize our electors chosen by the legislature than the electors that were certified for Biden in certain states. The hope is that Pence's authority as the President of the Senate would allow him to choose which electors he wants to legally recognize, and by recognizing Trump's electors, Trump would maintain power.

So... how are we getting around the Electoral Count Act, which specifically dictates what happens in exactly the situation we're trying to create here?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

"But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted."

So basically what will happen is both sets of electors show up and present their votes. Because there is a dispute, it is likely that this will be passed to Congress. The House and Senate will debate these issues separately and then reach a conclusion, where the Senate will likely choose Trump's electors, while the House will choose Biden's. This doesn't solve anything yet, because Congress is still disputed.

But from what I'm reading, Pence wouldn't actually be the one getting to make a choice here. If Congress can't agree on which electors to use, then the electors who were certified by the state will be used.

In this case, that means they'd be legally compelled to choose Biden's electors. Those were the electors certified by the State. Pence wouldn't have a say.

And we'd be right back where we started, except now the electors would have Pence's stamp.

What's the plan, here? I ended up doing my own research on this because I couldn't find an actual legal expert supporting this plan. Is this why? Because I don't want to wait until January just to find out that the thing we've been sitting around waiting to happen can't actually legally happen, and that's why nobody outside of this site seems to be taking this strategy seriously. What gives?

I wrote something similar in another thread, but I think it bears repeating after seeing how many people are questioning Trump's legal picks. We have to figure this out.

Only one of these statements can be true:

1. Donald Trump is a competent President who hires competent, qualified people to important positions like SCOTUS. He's a warrior who knows how to recognize and fight the Deep State. He was not lying when he said he hires the best people and knows how to protect this country from the Swamp.

2. Donald Trump is exactly what Dems said, and has no idea how to tell a Deep State traitor from a MAGA patriot. He continually hires people who have no interest in his agenda, and instead of draining the swamp has idiotically filled it with traitors. He was lying when he said he hires the best people and knows how to protect this country from the Swamp.

I, and everyone else here, should reject 2 and support 1. But supporting the idea that Trump knows the Deep State and wouldn't willingly install traitorous Swamp Monsters into the government means that we have to consider that our lawyers are the problem, and are either exaggerating the validity of the evidence they have, or are incompetently presenting it to courts.

We have lost in court too many times for me to believe that Trump is such a fucking idiot that he has filled every legal path to the Presidency with traitors.

We have to accept that Trump knew what he was doing when selecting these judges, and that our case might not actually be as strong as the lawyers are claiming, if even our own Justices don't believe it. We have to accept that if Trump isn't lying about what he believes regarding widespread fraud, then he might be receiving bad info from his lawyers.

Because if you think everyone who's ruled against Trump is a traitor, then you're telling me that Donald Trump either willingly or idiotically put THAT MANY traitors into our government, and I'm not pleased by that accusation.