Sidney Powell dropped by Trump Administration

[spartan max2]

5 hours ago, bee said:

 

I did see somewhere that the Supreme Court can delay the inauguration if they see fit and the election outcome is still in question....

 

 

If that happens then the position of president and vice president become vacant and we follow order of succession. Which would be speaker of the house as president until it's resolved.

https://sanfrancisco-cbslocal-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/11/05/nancy-pelosi-president-election-results-delay/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16065739927457&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fsanfrancisco.cbslocal.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fnancy-pelosi-president-election-results-delay%2F

[spartan max2]

5 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

So if PA and any 2 other contested states get nullified then neither candidate would reach 270 and it would go to the house of representatives where each state delegation would decide how their state would vote and whoever would win that would become president.  Meanwhile the senate would vote on who becomes vice president with each senator getting a vote.

What I'm reading claims the presidency would be vacant until the issue is resolved.

So it would follow the line of succession and go to the speaker of the house until states could certify.

https://sanfrancisco-cbslocal-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/11/05/nancy-pelosi-president-election-results-delay/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16065739927457&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fsanfrancisco.cbslocal.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fnancy-pelosi-president-election-results-delay%2F

Im not sure if states can send EC reps without their votes being certified.

 

I also want to point out. If people's plan is to stop state votes from being certified with that idea that you can get states to send EC reps to vote for Trump. Against what the vote actually was.

Then you guys do not believe and Democracy and are entirely corrupt...

Lucky state legislators have already told Trump they are not going to try and do that.

Edited November 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[Agent0range]

5 hours ago, bee said:

 

neither candidate conceding and unfinished investigations into election fraud / foreign interference...

or

Nancy Pelosi blackmailing / bribing key people because she's had all her cosmetic surgery done in preparation... and her hair dyed and styled to perfection and she wants to be the first female Pres... even if it is only interim...  

 

Bee, conceding isn't really a thing.  It's a formality.  A President does not have to concede.  As far as investigations in to election fraud...read the Trump appointed judge's ruling from yesterday.  Nothing in the lawsuit involved fraud, only procedure.  And nothing in the lawsuit involved any federal law or statute, so the judge said it wasn't even appropriate for federal court.  

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I also want to point out. If people's plan is to stop state votes from being certified with that idea that you can get states to send EC reps to vote for Trump. Against what the vote actually was.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-republicans-will-likely-win-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit_3596477.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2020-11-28

The fundamental disconnect you guys have is that you believe the numbers despite a mountain of sworn statements, statistical analyses and vote numbers exceeding the numbers of eligible voters in a given area.  It really is beginning to look like this whole disgusting travesty is going to be undone and the honest result be for Trump.  I'm content to wait until SCOTUS has a chance to look at the facts and to explore the remedies.  Hopefully, the Justices will punt this decision back to the House of Representatives for a disposition.

You might want to have a look at the vulnerability of PA by looking at ACT 77.

This legislation paved the way for more relaxed mail-in voting BUT it included language that makes it clear that if ANY part of it is abrogated, ALL of it is.  The law said that ALL ballots must be returned by 8PM on the night of the election.  The court system took it on themselves to change that rule.  By the U.S. Constitution, they had NO STANDING to take that step so the act was null and void.  Alito has already signaled how this should be treated and you guys are apt to squeal but it was a clear violation and it may cause upwards of a half million ballots to be rejected.  

As for rejecting our "democracy", this situation would never have arisen had the Dems not flagrantly, stupidly attempted to dictate law through the judicial branch. 

[spartan max2]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

This legislation paved the way for more relaxed mail-in voting BUT it included language that makes it clear that if ANY part of it is abrogated, ALL of it is.  The law said that ALL ballots must be returned by 8PM on the night of the election.  The court system took it on themselves to change that rule.  By the U.S. Constitution, they had NO STANDING to take that step so the act was null and void.  Alito has already signaled how this should be treated and you guys are apt to squeal but it was a clear violation and it may cause upwards of a half million ballots to be rejected.  

The thing is none of that has anything to do with fraud.

You only care about it because you want to throw votes out in the belief it might possibly help Trump. Just an attempt at voter suppression.

That seems pretty undemocratic. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[+and-then]

https://100percentfedup.com/breaking-pa-judge-patricia-mccullough-rules-election-likely-unconstitutionalgives-pa-state-legislators-power-to-choose-electors/

And your stance appears to be agreement with the end justifies the means where removing Trump is concerned.  That judge ^ appears not to agree.  The bottom line is that when the Democrats used the courts to change rules for the election, they ran afoul of our Constitution.  

[Buzz_Light_Year]

17 minutes ago, and then said:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-republicans-will-likely-win-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit_3596477.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2020-11-28

The fundamental disconnect you guys have is that you believe the numbers despite a mountain of sworn statements, statistical analyses and vote numbers exceeding the numbers of eligible voters in a given area.  It really is beginning to look like this whole disgusting travesty is going to be undone and the honest result be for Trump.  I'm content to wait until SCOTUS has a chance to look at the facts and to explore the remedies.  Hopefully, the Justices will punt this decision back to the House of Representatives for a disposition.

You might want to have a look at the vulnerability of PA by looking at ACT 77.

This legislation paved the way for more relaxed mail-in voting BUT it included language that makes it clear that if ANY part of it is abrogated, ALL of it is.  The law said that ALL ballots must be returned by 8PM on the night of the election.  The court system took it on themselves to change that rule.  By the U.S. Constitution, they had NO STANDING to take that step so the act was null and void.  Alito has already signaled how this should be treated and you guys are apt to squeal but it was a clear violation and it may cause upwards of a half million ballots to be rejected.  

As for rejecting our "democracy", this situation would never have arisen had the Dems not flagrantly, stupidly attempted to dictate law through the judicial branch. 

The legislature also failed to amend the state Constitution giving them the authority to change the rules.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-legislature-constitutions-702a2a6cde48d3f2947b9e375b4ea999

[+and-then]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/election-findings-could-easily-overturn-3-states-data-analyst-concludes_3595153.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2020-11-27

 

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

https://100percentfedup.com/breaking-pa-judge-patricia-mccullough-rules-election-likely-unconstitutionalgives-pa-state-legislators-power-to-choose-electors/

And your stance appears to be agreement with the end justifies the means where removing Trump is concerned.  That judge ^ appears not to agree.  The bottom line is that when the Democrats used the courts to change rules for the election, they ran afoul of our Constitution.  

Trump's lawsuits have been laughed out of court in mass, by his own appointees. 

He finally got some progress with this one lawsuit you're talking about.

 

Yet, even if the judge rules to disenfranchise all those votes, it still wouldn't flip the state. 

Only 10k ballots came in after election day. Not enough to flip.

 

https://www-inquirer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.inquirer.com/politics/election/pennsylvania-mail-ballots-counted-deadline-supreme-court-20201111.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16065828375534&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquirer.com%2Fpolitics%2Felection%2Fpennsylvania-mail-ballots-counted-deadline-supreme-court-20201111.html

[spartan max2]

9 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The legislature also failed to amend the state Constitution giving them the authority to change the rules.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-legislature-constitutions-702a2a6cde48d3f2947b9e375b4ea999

Ah yes, an attempt to throw out 2.7 million votes. Once again not even claiming fraud.

Quote

Attorney General Josh Shapiro said on Twitter that the elected officials and candidates who joined the suit “should be ashamed of themselves.”

“They’re asking a court to throw out the votes of 2.5 million Pennsylvanians,” said Shapiro, a Democrat. “It’s another weak attempt to subvert the will of the people. Desperate, hypocritical, baseless... I could go on.”

Just admit you guys do not care about democracy.

That would be seen as voter suppression by everyone but Trump's hardcore supporters.

 

Ridiculous.

Quote

The plaintiffs contend that the GOP-controlled Legislature never followed the proper constitutional procedures to expand exceptions to in-person voting to institute a system of universal mail-in voting and are asking the court to throw out non-absentee mail-in ballots.

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

Only 10k ballots came in after election day. Not enough to flip.

I guess a little cheating doesn't matter, eh?  The Legislature is moving to remove the power to name Electors.  That's a Red Legislature that knows they will lose to a man or woman if they don't vote to give them to Trump OR to refuse to certify them.  Your anger about disenfranchisement is going to fall on deaf ears after the magnitude of the cheating your party did.  The tide appears to be changing.

 

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That would be seen as voter suppression by everyone but Trump's hardcore supporters.

What the hell do you call having 700K more votes in a district than there were registered voters?  The absolute refusal to obey the law and allow observers?  

[spartan max2]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

I guess a little cheating doesn't matter, eh?  The Legislature is moving to remove the power to name Electors.  That's a Red Legislature that knows they will lose to a man or woman if they don't vote to give them to Trump OR to refuse to certify them.  Your anger about disenfranchisement is going to fall on deaf ears after the magnitude of the cheating your party did.  The tide appears to be changing.

 

What the hell do you call having 700K more votes in a district than there were registered voters?  The absolute refusal to obey the law and allow observers?  

No judge has ruled that there has been proof of cheating or fraud.

 

 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Ah yes, an attempt to throw out 2.7 million votes. Once again not even claiming fraud.

Just admit you guys do not care about democracy.

That would be seen as voter suppression by everyone but Trump's hardcore supporters.

 

Ridiculous.

 

So it's okay to subvert the Constitution whether it be a state Constitution or the U.S. Constitution to allow those votes to stand?

 

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

So it's okay to subvert the Constitution whether it be a state Constitution or the U.S. Constitution to allow those votes to stand?

 

By subvert the constitution, you mean the courts in Pennsylvania ruling that postmarked (as being mailed by election day) mail in ballots can arrive 3 days after election? During a year where a pandemic caused an unprecedented increase in mail-in-ballots with only 8 months for states to prepare?

Not the in of the world, no. The courts will fix it if that was illegal (which has not been ruled on yet)

They may even rule it as illegal, but remedy it by saying that can't do that in the future, without throwing votes out.

But even if the 10k votes are thrown out, It's not enough votes to flip the state .

But let's not act like you care about that. The Republican legislator has been trying to suppress the vote by not allowing that in the first place.

You only care because you want to throw votes out. It's proves no fraud or cheating.

Try to spin it all you want.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[ian hacktorp]

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

No judge has ruled that there has been proof of cheating or fraud.

Pennsylvania Judge Backs Trump Claims Over Mail-In Ballots, Says 'Unlikely Constitutional'

Quote

After a Pennsylvania Judge blocked the state from 'taking any further steps' to complete the certification of the presidential race on Wednesday - she dropped a detailed opinion on Friday justifying her decision, which concludes that the state's changes to mail-in balloting procedures were likely illegal.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/pennsylvania-judge-backs-trump-says-election-unlikely-constitutional

[ian hacktorp]

Hey...where did spartan max2 go?

Lol...

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

By subvert the constitution, you mean the courts in Pennsylvania ruling that postmarked (as being mailed by election day) mail in ballots can arrive 3 days after election? During a year where a pandemic caused an unprecedented increase in mail-in-ballots with only 8 months for states to prepare?

Not the in of the world, no. The courts will fix it if that was illegal (which has not been ruled on yet)

They may even ruled it's illegal, but remedy it by saying that can't do that in the future, without throwing votes out.

But even if the 10k votes are thrown out, It's not enough votes to flip the state .

But let's not act like you care about that. The Republican legislator has been trying to suppress the vote by not allowing that in the first place.

You only care because you want to throw votes out. It's proves no fraud or cheating.

Try to spin it all you want.

 

 

Please refrain for trying to do my thinking for me.

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, ian hacktorp said:

Hey...where did spartan max2 go?

Lol...

You probably don't realize, but your link is what we have been talking about the last 2 pages already. 

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

You probably don't realize, but your link is what we have been talking about the last 2 pages already. 

Whoa...I do see that now.

Which makes your curious remark seem all the more ridiculous.

Carry on...

[spartan max2]

Just now, ian hacktorp said:

Whoa...I do see that now.

Which makes your curious remark seem all the more ridiculous.

Carry on...

?

[Gromdor]

So let me get this straight.  Republicans in Pennsylvania passed a law knowing it was unconstitutional, voters voted according to the law, and now they are pushing to dump all those votes because of the unconstitutionality of the law they created and place their own electoral college electors?  Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of rigging the election to me- but not by Biden.  This is the argument you want to take to the courts?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

So let me get this straight.  Republicans in Pennsylvania passed a law knowing it was unconstitutional, voters voted according to the law, and now they are pushing to dump all those votes because of the unconstitutionality of the law they created and place their own electoral college electors?  Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of rigging the election to me- but not by Biden.  This is the argument you want to take to the courts?

So what is your remedy should SCOTUS strike down the law as being unconstitutional?

Edited November 28, 2020 by Buzz_Light_Year

[spartan max2]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

So what is your remedy should SCOTUS strike down the law as being unconstitutional?

I think a remedy would be to make a ruling for how they have to handel future elections. But let the votes stay.

You can't punish citizens for following the law. Even if the law gets revoked in the future. When the citizens voted the law was still active. 

Just like you can't change a law and then punish someone for breaking the law before the law was made. 

 

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

So what is your remedy should SCOTUS strike down the law as being unconstitutional?

Too late now.  Voting is a constitutional right as well.  It would be like trying to use a free speech violation as justification to remove the right to bear arms.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Too late now.  Voting is a constitutional right as well.  It would be like trying to use a free speech violation as justification to remove the right to bear arms.

 

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I think a remedy would be to make a ruling for how they have to handel future elections. But let the votes stay.

You can't punish citizens for following the law. Even if the law gets revoked in the future. When the citizens voted the law was still active. 

Just like you can't change a law and then punish someone for breaking the law before the law was made. 

 

Constitution has supremacy over laws.

Now what are you going to do?