Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is any evidence of fraud in the election, that should be presented in court. Signed affidavits are no substitute for eyewitness testimony in court, with cross-examination. Until fraud is proven in a court of law, all of the accusations and allegations are just noise.
So what then is the purpose of exhibitions, such as Rudy and Sydney's press conference? It is now coming into focus - they wish to bring public pressure on states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to NOT certify the election results. If the results are not certified by the deadlines, two things could happen:
1. State legislatures in those states, controlled by Republicans, could vote to send a pro-Trump slate of electors, in contradiction of the expressed will of the voters
2. If those states fail to send any electoral votes, it could create a Constitutional crisis under which the House of Representatives would step in according to the 12th amendment. Because under that amendment each state gets one vote, the advantage would go to the Republicans.
This is a bold and bald-faced attempt to steal the election, right in plain sight. The tweets, the conspiracy theories and now the press conference, are all just for show. There is no evidence, or it would have been presented in court. Trump is the man who declared a phony state of emergency so that he could steal defense funds to build a wall. Do you have any doubt that he would resort to such chicanery to stay in office?
WE CAN'T LET THIS HAPPEN!
That’s what he hopes happen but won’t.
The states votes aren’t close enough to cause an issue.
Trump denied responsibility for his role in 6 corporate bankruptcies. Could not have been he was seriously over- leveraged. No, the greedy banksters wanted to be paid.
Trump called the Emmy Awards a rigged system when The Apprentice failed to win an Emmy.
During the final months of the 2016 election, Trump was obsessed with communicating the Electoral College was an unconstitutional rigged system. His base parroted it.
No surprise Trump did the same this year. No shame at insisting one state stop counting ballots when he was ahead. No shame insisting another state continue counting when he was behind.
The Constitution is clear, that states determine the time, place, method and process of accepting, validating and tallying ballots.
The unhinged tweets and press conferences serve one common purpose- destabilization by propaganda.
If there is any evidence of fraud in the election, that should be presented in court. Signed affidavits are no substitute for eyewitness testimony in court, with cross-examination. Until fraud is proven in a court of law, all of the accusations and allegations are just noise.
So what then is the purpose of exhibitions, such as Rudy and Sydney's press conference? It is now coming into focus - they wish to bring public pressure on states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to NOT certify the election results. If the results are not certified by the deadlines, two things could happen:
1. State legislatures in those states, controlled by Republicans, could vote to send a pro-Trump slate of electors, in contradiction of the expressed will of the voters
2. If those states fail to send any electoral votes, it could create a Constitutional crisis under which the House of Representatives would step in according to the 12th amendment. Because under that amendment each state gets one vote, the advantage would go to the Republicans.
This is a bold and bald-faced attempt to steal the election, right in plain sight. The tweets, the conspiracy theories and now the press conference, are all just for show. There is no evidence, or it would have been presented in court. Trump is the man who declared a phony state of emergency so that he could steal defense funds to build a wall. Do you have any doubt that he would resort to such chicanery to stay in office?
WE CAN'T LET THIS HAPPEN!
So there's a lot to unravel here.
All three of those states have split party control (Democratic Governor, Republican legislature). None have veto-proof super majorities either. And this would also assume that rank and file Republicans would all vote to overturn the will of the people.
So let's imagine that somehow, these lawsuits succeeded and WI, MI and PA did not certify their vote. And then the only option left is to appoint Electors. But the state can't do that because the Governors would veto any attempt to overturn the election... what happens next?
This is where there IS a constitutional crisis. And it doesn't yet involve the House of Representative where Biden will not prevail.
The part of the Constitution that discusses the Electoral College says that the winner needs a majority of the Electors to be declared President. If WI, MI and PA don't send Electors, the winner doesn't need 270 Electors anymore. There wouldn't be 538 Electors. They would be 492. The winner then needs 247 Electors to win. Trump has 232. He'd still come up short and Biden would win.
However... this part of the Constitution was never really tested. The closest we came was the Election of 1876 when some states did not certify results to send Electors. However, to avoid a Constitutional crisis, they compromised. They gave the win to the Republican (Hayes) in exchange for what was essentially the end of Reconstruction (federal troops removed from readmitted Southern states).
The thing is, the part about do you need 270 Electors to win or just a majority of sent Electors might seem pretty clear if you read the Constitution, but you know that it will go up to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that has three Trump appointees and a 6-3 majority. If they re-interpret the Constitution to claim you need 270 Electors and not just the majority of Electors sent... then it would go the House.
We don't know the results of every House district yet, and this does matter. The incoming House would select the President based on state delegations. CA gets 1 vote. And WY gets 1 vote. Each state, just 1 vote, based on a majority of the delegation. You need 26 state delegations to win. Depending on how it fleshes out, if enough states have even delegations, Trump might only get to 25. In that case, the House cannot decide the winner.
Move over to the Senate, the Senate would select the VP. Again, there are multiple constitutional crises on the horizon there. First, from what I remember reading a month ago, Pence doesn't get a tiebreaking vote as President of the Senate. This vote is done without him. So, someone needs 51 votes. If Republicans win at least 1 GA seat, they'd elect Pence as the VP. The Constitution isn't all that clear about what happens next. I'm not a legal scholar, but what I read in there is that Pence would be Acting President until a President is either selected by the House or a special election is held in 2021 for the Office of President again. There is some language in there that is pretty specific about that scenario. The VP takes over for the President if he resigns or is otherwise incapacitated, but NOT if the office is vacant. The VP is Acting President until the position is filled.
Now, if the Democrats win both GA seats, we have no VP (likely 50-50 split). For fun, let's say one Republican broke ranks and selected Harris as the VP. Then there'd be a fight over whether she is a naturally born citizen or not. But, that won't happen. With a 50-50 split in the Senate, no VP and no President. If that happens, the Speaker of the House becomes either President (4 years) or Acting President (until special election) - again, the Constitution isn't all that clear.
Keep in mind, anything in the Constitution that is "not all that clear" is a tilt to Trump. The primary job of the Judiciary (SCOTUS) is to interpret the Constitution. So, in ANY of those scenarios laid out in that wall of text, Trump has an advantage.
Trumpers, if your end goal is to have Trump as the next president, it will never happen. So what exactly is the point of carrying on with these lawsuits?
I'm 100% in favor of the lawsuits.
On the one hand you have the President taking to Twitter crying about fraud.
On the other hand you have his legal team showing up to court with zero evidence.
It will never change the opinion of the uneducated Trump supporter but for people on the fence it will drive home the point that there was zero evidence of voter fraud on a magnitude that it could alter the election.
Someone's been watching too much mainstream media. What he's doing is within the confines of the law. It's not a bold and bald face attempt to steal the election by not simply rolling over and conceding just because the media has declared Joe Biden President elect. The people complaining about this don't understand how the election process works. They've also been finding widespread voter irregularities. If anything, it's democrats trying to steal the election by saying Trump should concede even when there is widespread error.
What is within the confines of the law is 1) requesting a recount, and 2) filing a case in a court of law. If there is any evidence it should be presented in court. Witnesses should testify and submit to cross-examination. Meanwhile, any claims made on Twitter, City Data, Facebook or press conferences are irrelevant.
But thus far, Rudy's attempts at lawsuits have been half-hearted failures. It is clear that they don't expect to win in court, but would rather inflame Trump's base with accusations and unsupported claims, hoping to reverse the expressed will of the people, as I described in my OP. Is it illegal? Not technically. If it was illegal I wouldn't be so worried, because i have faith in our courts. Just as I mentioned Trump's use of a state of emergency as an example of misuse of the law to achieve ends that couldn't be achieved through more legitimate means, Trump hopes to disenfranchise voters in certain battleground states.
I see a lot of comments just like yours. Never any specifics.
I don't think you know much of anything about the court cases. I think you're just parroting a narrative.
Isn't it remarkable how emotionally charged up you are about something you don't really know much about?
Why do you think that is?
You're asking the person to prove a negative. That's not how it works.
In order to seek damages you have to prove something. Case after case gets dismissed due to lack of evidence. The person doesn't need to have specifics if a duly elected judge is dismissing a case.
It is the people on the side of Trump who need to prove the evidence.
Where is the postal worker who claimed ballots were being backdated. Oh yeah, he didn't want to sign under the penalty of perjury.
Where is the person who claimed her ballot was stolen? Oh yean, she didn't want to sign under the penalty of perjury.
Why is Dye Job Rudy making unsubstantiated claims to judges?
The legal team is grasping at straws. Trump is using Twitter to rile up his uneducated base...who are simply a pawn in his game and they don't even realize it.
But thus far, Rudy's attempts at lawsuits have been half-hearted failures.
Let's be fair not complete failures. The fake hair dye running down his face and the garish fake teeth paint a pretty vivid picture of Trump's legal challenges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
