Sidney Powell dropped by Trump Administration

[Gromdor]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

 

Constitution has supremacy over laws.

Now what are you going to do?

Depends, are you going to claim that voting is not a Constitutional right? 

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

 

Constitution has supremacy over laws.

Now what are you going to do?

Voting is a constitutional right. Not sure what your point is? 

And I may be wrong, but arent we talking about Pennsylvania's state constitution? 

[DarkHunter]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

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.

It would only go to the speaker of the house assuming the presidency if the contingent election failed to pick a president.  There have been like 3 presidents elected by a contingent election so it's not anything new.

It's not the states sending electors and their votes not being certified it would be the state legislature refusing to send the electors at all.

PA interestingly enough might just do what you claim state legislatures claimed they wouldnt.  After the hearing on election fraud they held a few days ago they said they are going to pass a joint resolution stripping the secretary of state from picking the electors and the governor of certifying the vote, null and voiding what they have already done.  If they do actually do this then more then likely the state legislature wont give the votes to Trump but instead claim there were too many irregularities for the vote to count and just wont send any electors.

It's not being corrupt, whether you like it or not everything Trump has been trying is legal and allowed by the constitution.  The founding fathers really hated the idea of democracy which is why the they made the country a republic.  Over time more and more democracy has been added in but the laws and work arounds to avoid being a democracy are still on the books and can still be used.

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

It would only go to the speaker of the house assuming the presidency if the contingent election failed to pick a president.  There have been like 3 presidents elected by a contingent election so it's not anything new.

It's not the states sending electors and their votes not being certified it would be the state legislature refusing to send the electors at all.

PA interestingly enough might just do what you claim state legislatures claimed they wouldnt.  After the hearing on election fraud they held a few days ago they said they are going to pass a joint resolution stripping the secretary of state from picking the electors and the governor of certifying the vote, null and voiding what they have already done.  If they do actually do this then more then likely the state legislature wont give the votes to Trump but instead claim there were too many irregularities for the vote to count and just wont send any electors.

It's not being corrupt, whether you like it or not everything Trump has been trying is legal and allowed by the constitution.  The founding fathers really hated the idea of democracy which is why the they made the country a republic.  Over time more and more democracy has been added in but the laws and work arounds to avoid being a democracy are still on the books and can still be used.

The article is 19 hours old. Perhaps old based on the speed of current events.

 

26 Pa. House Republicans call for withdrawing certification of presidential electors - pennlive.com

 

Quote

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre County, repeated on Friday what his caucus leaders stated earlier; they are standing by tradition of the popular vote winner in the presidential race getting the electors.

Edit:

Looks like there are 203 members in PA state house. So 26 wont be enough. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[Buzz_Light_Year]

30 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Depends, are you going to claim that voting is not a Constitutional right? 

Why would I claim that?

U.S. Constitution gives the state legislatures the sole authority on how to conduct elections in their respective states and the state legislatures are bound by their own state Constitution. Failure of state legislatures to follow the U.S. Constitution or the state Constitution would and should render any law passed that is in direct conflict with either one unlawful.

PA passed a law on elections yet failed to have their state Constitution amended authorizing the law a broader scope to authorize mail-in voting.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7&sctn=14&subsctn=0

Quote

§ 14. Absentee voting. (a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside. (b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

As I understand it that is the crux of the lawsuit.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Buzz_Light_Year

[Golden Duck]

On 11/28/2020 at 1:51 AM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The Epoch Times is funded in part by Falun Gong and Falun Gong is an anti-communists movement wanting to overthrow the Chinese Government. The Epoch Times is banned in China.

For someone to say they are Communist isn't just misinformation, it's an outright lie.

Falun Gong is a cult.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Falun Gong is a cult.

And that has what to do with Manwon's claim that they are communist. Let's see.................None.

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

And that has what to do with Manwon's claim that they are communist. Let's see.................None.

You noticed I replied to your post, didn't you?  Remember where  you said Falun Gong is "an anti-communist movement".  They're not, they are a cult. 

They have their members provide free labour.  Their headquarters is a commune where internet is restricted. In the context of China, when they speak of communism, Falun Gong really means European Ideology. 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You noticed I replied to your post, didn't you?  Remember where  you said Falun Gong is "an anti-communist movement".  They're not, they are a cult. 

They have their members provide free labour.  Their headquarters is a commune where internet is restricted. In the context of China, when they speak of communism, Falun Gong really means European Ideology. 

Yeah they're religious and still want to bring down the Chinese government. I'd say that would qualify as being anti-communist.

[thedutchiedutch]

The word "unhinged" comes to mind when hearing and thinking of the name "Sidney Powell". 

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

And that has what to do with Manwon's claim that they are communist. Let's see.................None.

Perhaps if you guys quoted from and linked to less radical fringe questionable sources you could better support your claims rather than spend countless posts defending you shacky shady questionable sources,  just a thought.

[Gromdor]

Well, I gotta say the courts are working fast: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans (msn.com)

 

 "Five of the seven judges wrote that they believed the lawsuit had been filed far too late, a year after absentee voting procedures had been established in the state and weeks after millions of Pennsylvanians voted in good faith."

 

[acidhead]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, I gotta say the courts are working fast: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans (msn.com)

 

 "Five of the seven judges wrote that they believed the lawsuit had been filed far too late, a year after absentee voting procedures had been established in the state and weeks after millions of Pennsylvanians voted in good faith."

 

To the SCOTUS it goes!

 

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, President-Elect Acidhead said:

To the SCOTUS it goes!

 

Probably not.  This is ultimately a state law issue and not a federal law issue.  Unless the Trump team can scrape up something to make it relate to a federal law then the SCOTUS wouldn't even have grounds to hear it.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

15 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Perhaps if you guys quoted from and linked to less radical fringe questionable sources you could better support your claims rather than spend countless posts defending you shacky shady questionable sources,  just a thought.

You mean like HuffPost, Vox, Salon, CNN, MSN, and the whole cadre of leftist sites where facts go to die?

You'll just have to excuse me if I choose other sites for a better sampling of what actually is going on in the world as opposed to copy and paste yellow journalism.

I have already stated on UM that I don't subscribe to any one news source and when a subject broaches I'll search on Duck Duck Go for my information because Google's filters out information that people really should have access to for varied information.

I choose not to exist in an echo chamber.

 

[acidhead]

17 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Probably not.  This is ultimately a state law issue and not a federal law issue.  Unless the Trump team can scrape up something to make it relate to a federal law then the SCOTUS wouldn't even have grounds to hear it.

Their case was challenging that Act 77 of 2019 violates the united states Constitution.  The PA supreme court didn't rule on it.  They simply said you filed too late. It's never to late to uphold the rule of federal laws.

Edited November 29, 2020 by President-Elect Acidhead

[the13bats]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Probably not.  This is ultimately a state law issue and not a federal law issue.  Unless the Trump team can scrape up something to make it relate to a federal law then the SCOTUS wouldn't even have grounds to hear it.

Yeah, the thing is there has been a hell of a lot of trump braying all kinds of claims and accusations with a variety of characters coming on board like Mr Brownsweat and Qanon powell, all bleating and braying of fraud this cheated votes boasting of releasing mythical beasts of earth changing evidence one would think there would be a landslide of evidence and proof but no, in fact none, judges have been tossing out cases right and left giving rather cynical lectures along with it,

Yet trumps die hard bent knee worshippers grasp and moan come jan 20th trump will be the winner,  with zero to back that up.

 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, President-Elect Acidhead said:

Their case was challenging that it violates the united states Constitution.  The PA supreme court didn't rule on it.  They simply said you filed too late. It's never to late to uphold the rule of federal laws.

Nah, they said it violated the State Constitution.  The United States Constitution says that states determine how voting is done.

[the13bats]

13 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

You mean like HuffPost, Vox, Salon, CNN, MSN, and the whole cadre of leftist sites where facts go to die?

You'll just have to excuse me if I choose other sites for a better sampling of what actually is going on in the world as opposed to copy and paste yellow journalism.

I have already stated on UM that I don't subscribe to any one news source and when a subject broaches I'll search on Duck Duck Go for my information because Google's filters out information that people really should have access to for varied information.

I choose not to exist in an echo chamber.

 

Perhaps list from these myriads of sources you claim to use not your echo chamber that reflects your opinion because all i see is your claims get lost because you choose to use questionable sources.

Edited November 29, 2020 by the13bats

[spartan max2]

PA supreme court rules against republican lawsuit again.

Quote

(CNN)The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit Saturday night from US Rep. Mike Kelly and other Republicans, after they had tried to invalidate absentee voting and block the certification of votes in recent weeks.

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/28/politics/pennsylvania-state-supreme-court-election-case/index.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16066134528264&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2020%2F11%2F28%2Fpolitics%2Fpennsylvania-state-supreme-court-election-case%2Findex.html

Edited November 29, 2020 by spartan max2

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

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

 

 

Are you even attempting to search out information from non MSM sources?  Do you honestly believe these professionals would blatantly lie about numbers that are part of the public record?  It's time for Americans to wake up and see what's happening here or things are going to fall completely apart.  These criminals are working in the open and they've been seen doing it.  Ignore it if you like but don't bother screaming if Trump takes the oath again on 1/20/21.  

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Are you even attempting to search out information from non MSM sources?  Do you honestly believe these professionals would blatantly lie about numbers that are part of the public record?  It's time for Americans to wake up and see what's happening here or things are going to fall completely apart.  These criminals are working in the open and they've been seen doing it.  Ignore it if you like but don't bother screaming if Trump takes the oath again on 1/20/21.  

They would lie to you because there is no penalty, but there is a penalty for lying in court- which is why they haven't made any of the claims you have been hearing in front of a judge.  Court records are public. You can look what they are saying and compare it to what you have been hearing on whatever media you have been listening to for the truth.

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Against what the vote actually was.

Against what YOU want to believe the vote was.  It's time to wake up and accept that your reality that's been created by a criminalized media cannot be FORCED on the rest of this nation.  The whole POINT of this issue is to try to see what the actual vote totals were.  Everyone other than Democrats understood what was going to happen when millions of unsolicited ballots were flooded into communities and fortunately, a LOT of citizens were looking for the cheating and documented tons of it.  That reality does not disappear because Fareed or the bowtie wearing mean-girl on CNN disagrees.  

If a couple of these states legislatures refuse to certify the vote for either candidate then the next step is NOT automatically the SCOTUS.  The U.S. House employs a contingent election where all states get a single vote.  If Trump is chosen then he will be president and all the chaos, snowflake melting or green haired fury in the world won't change it.  

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, ian hacktorp said:

Hey...where did spartan max2 go?

Lol...

Considering that his neighbors gave Trump an 8 point victory, I can understand how he'd be ticked off.  They aren't willing to even entertain the idea that they even MIGHT have been wrong.  Dems do seem to have an affection for making law from the bench and in this case it burned them.

[ian hacktorp]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

They aren't willing to even entertain the idea that they even MIGHT have been wrong.

Well, they're not keeping up with the times much.  Even CNN is starting to admit that Trump will be inaugurated:

Lol...