Actually, I may be wrong after all. Vice-President Michael Pence may have the authority to reject the list of electors.
The US Constitution is very clear. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 Phrase 1 state... View MoreActually, I may be wrong after all. Vice-President Michael Pence may have the authority to reject the list of electors.
The US Constitution is very clear. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 Phrase 1 states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors".
Whether fraud happened or not is not the Vice-President's(President Of The Senate) concern. However, he cannot accept the list of electors of the state if he believed the choosing of electors violated the manner that the state legislature directed for that state's choosing.
It has been the fundamental premise by the President, Vice-President, and so many others that state laws(constitutional and statutory) were significantly violated in the administration of the election by state authorities. They have expressed that non-legislative edicts were followed when they were in clear violation of state law.
If Vice-President Michael Pence states to a specific State that he has to reject their list of electors for the reasons previously described, he is within his right to do as President Of The Senate.
Again, the Vice-President is not to concern himself about the failure of elections. That is the prerogative of US Congress. However, he cannot accept the lists if he believes it is an improper list that did not meet the core constitutional requirement. That core requirement is that the choosing of electors on that list complied with the manner directed by the state legislature.
Finally, the Vice-President(President of the Senate) cannot accept a list of electors and then open it in the presence of the US Congress if he believes that list is indeed not legitimate.
It appears that the Presidential election results may be significantly changed before January 6th.
The Senate Judiciary Committee of Georgia has stated that the Presidential election in its state was... View MoreIt appears that the Presidential election results may be significantly changed before January 6th.
The Senate Judiciary Committee of Georgia has stated that the Presidential election in its state was indeed lawfully defective and that a special session of the General Assembly should be called to decertify its election results.
This measure will now have the judiciary committee of Georgia's lower house to evaluate the election. If they rule the same as the Senate judiciary committee, a special session would be called and in all probability, this Presidential election would be decertified.
In Arizona, its senate judiciary committee is reviewing the Dominion voting machines in its largest county, Maricopa. If they feel those machines did not adequately yield accurate results, they will send the resolution to its lower house. If both houses feel a special session of its general assembly is needed to vote on the decertification
of its election, then that is what will happen.
In Wisconsin, their Supreme Court opined that clerks did not have unilateral lawful authority to issue "Indefinite Confinement" status to the voters. Therefore any ballots sent by voters who received such status from only the clerks should not be deemed as lawful. Those ballots should be rejected. However, this is something both its houses has to decide. Both houses would call for a special election if both felt that decertification was in order.
Both houses would follow the same process if they feel that the 221,000 mail-in ballots ,which did not meet written request requirements, were indeed unlawful.
Those three states could see their state legislatures choose Trump electors as its electors. After all, if they believe that their prescribed manner in selecting electors was not proper, they can choose the electors directly.
Of course, if it is not clear to them as to what candidate won the presidential election in its state, then that state should choose to not have any electoral vote representation.
As President trump has already stated, the certification of an election as lawful when it is indeed not, is by itself unlawful.
Hopefully these three states would have its legislatures take a decision before the New Year.
Do the math! The USA has 332 million residents. Out of that figure, 74 million are under 18 and 27 million are adult non-citizens.
There are also over 5 million felons who are ineligible to vote. Th... View MoreDo the math! The USA has 332 million residents. Out of that figure, 74 million are under 18 and 27 million are adult non-citizens.
There are also over 5 million felons who are ineligible to vote. That means that USA has a maximum of 228 million eligible voters. Yet the US is stating that it has currently 239 million registered voters. This makes no sense.
Out of that figure, 66.7% voted in the Presidential elections. In the previous 50 years, that figure never reached more than 58.2%.
Of course there are those who will say the turnout was much higher because people could cast ballots from their own home. For the last time, there is no way to tell where those ballots came from. Mail-in balloting should not have been allowed!
Many people are desiring martial law to achieve a fair election. Be careful what you wish for.
I am not stating that it should be totally ruled out. Just be careful on how it is used and on what p... View MoreMany people are desiring martial law to achieve a fair election. Be careful what you wish for.
I am not stating that it should be totally ruled out. Just be careful on how it is used and on what precedent it establishes. This could be used as a cover to implement massive and mandatory vaccinations. Always watch the "back door" in situations like this.
Many people are righteously angry over this blatantly fraudulent election. However, one must ask oneself "How was this allowed to happen in the first place?" Beware of "Trojan Horses"!
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. -11th Amendment of the US Constitution
It is pretty damn clear that federal courts(USSC and district) are prohibited from hearing cases in which the parties are citizens of any state(same or different) and a State itself. Then why on God's green earth is Team Legal Trump filing lawsuits in federal courts? They should only be filing claim in state courts and that too only to invalidate followed policies that were indeed unlawful.
Really, since the executive branch of state government certifies the election and since the legislative branch of state government can decertify the election and then directly appoint electors according to the Presidential Election Day Act, common sense and logic would dictate that they should have been vigorously approached. They were not. "Legal Team Trump" failed to do just that.
I cannot help but wonder what Trump's end game is? Perhaps he has been totally misled as he has been advised improperly. However, how does anyone in his position not see that absolute wreck that the mail-in ballots and foreign-based EVMs would cause? Even I knew back in the summer of the impending disaster that would result.
At times such as these, all must keep both eyes open and all must question everything. No one should place implicit faith in the "legal profession" or he/she will be led astray.
Senator Rand Paul might join a bid by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) to challenge the election's outcome and overturn the results in several states on January 6th. Paul, hardly a Trump fan, is very reputable... View MoreSenator Rand Paul might join a bid by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) to challenge the election's outcome and overturn the results in several states on January 6th. Paul, hardly a Trump fan, is very reputable!
This is how dual slate of electors works. If there is only one slate of electors and if an objection is raised as to whether or not the laws of the state were complied with properly, both houses of the federal legislature take a vote on this issue of compliance. If both houses are not in agreement, then the electors as certified by the Governor will be chosen and their votes for President will be counted. That would be the slate of electors present.
If there are two slates of electors present and if an objection is raised as to whether or not the laws of the state were complied with properly, both houses of the federal legislature take a vote on this issue of compliance.
Both houses of the federal legislature decide who the lawful electors are. If both houses cannot choose the same set of electors as lawful, they then decide what slate of electors are not lawful.
If both houses decide that both slate of electors are unlawful, then the electors from that specific state are barred from casting votes for President. If both houses choose the same set of electors as unlawful, then the other set of electors will be chosen to as lawful electors. If both houses are in disagreement, then the set of electors sealed by the governor will cast votes for the President.
President Trump did the right thing having Republican electors in 4 states cast their votes for him. It would be difficult for either house to reject votes from a state if there was only one slate of electors. Since there are two slate of electors, the Republican slate in those two states stand a much higher chance of being selected by both houses in case an objection is raised. When there are two slates, no slate is outright rejected but rather not chosen. This decreases the difficulties for both houses to make its choice.
The following is specific evidence. If Maricopa County,Arizona proves to have the same error rate in its machines as Antrim County,Michigan, that states' election should not be advised by the courts t... View MoreThe following is specific evidence. If Maricopa County,Arizona proves to have the same error rate in its machines as Antrim County,Michigan, that states' election should not be advised by the courts to be certifiable or valid in a best case scenario.
In a worst case scenario, the courts should advise that Trump is indeed declared to be the winner of that state.
Once January 20th arrives and Biden happens to be inaugurated, Trump would be out of the picture.
If it is proven after that date that Biden,after being sworn in as POTUS, was involved in rigging the ... View MoreOnce January 20th arrives and Biden happens to be inaugurated, Trump would be out of the picture.
If it is proven after that date that Biden,after being sworn in as POTUS, was involved in rigging the elections, he would have to step down as he would have been convicted.
Harris would be presumed to take his place but if he was implicated, then she too would be implicated.
Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, would be called to serve as Acting President.
Even though the courts cannot invalidate an election, they can still support and apply the law. They can opine and advise that any ballot that does not meet lawful requirements should not be deemed as... View MoreEven though the courts cannot invalidate an election, they can still support and apply the law. They can opine and advise that any ballot that does not meet lawful requirements should not be deemed as lawful and therefore should not be counted. This measure alone would give President Trump the victory.
Of course the non-legislative officeholders who unlawfully changed how the elections should have been conducted should be tried for misconduct that, if found guilty, would result in impeachment in the state's lower legislative house and then later conviction in the state senate. That conviction would necessitate the removal of that officeholder.
In Antrim County, Michigan, 7000 ballots that should have gone to Trump went to Biden due to software programming. Their failure rate was 68% when it should only be 2.5 ten thousands of one percent. T... View MoreIn Antrim County, Michigan, 7000 ballots that should have gone to Trump went to Biden due to software programming. Their failure rate was 68% when it should only be 2.5 ten thousands of one percent. That county had 16.000 voters.
In Maricopa County, Arizona, which has a population of 4.5 million, their Dominion Software machines apparently had the same glitches. Their machines, which are the same as the Antrim County machines, will now be audited.
In a court of law, evidence like that should stand because specific ballots have been proven to be changed from one candidate to another.
Even if the courts opined that 50% of the voters and votes were bad, they still cannot disqualify an election.
The courts should opine that Dominion Software(used in 28 states) should not have been u... View MoreEven if the courts opined that 50% of the voters and votes were bad, they still cannot disqualify an election.
The courts should opine that Dominion Software(used in 28 states) should not have been used and that the officials who allowed it to be used should be subject to criminal prosecution.
However, that advisement would not permit the courts to overturn the entire election nor should they.
For example, a referee is bribed to officiate against against a certain team. That referee should be barred and even punished for his actions. However, the results of that sporting event would stand.
page=2&profile_user_id=73541&year=&month=
Load More
