Republicans claim “precanvasing” of Democrats with defective ballots so that they could vote using a provisional ballot in its place was carried out BEFORE election day, which is hilariously illegal. The argument made before the Supreme Court is that the entire PA election was unconstitutional.
They seriously threw the whole kitchen sink at PA.
Republicans need to spam the courts with lawsuits on all the many different types of election fuckery that went on. Some will fail, some will succeed but not significantly alter the result and then you've got things like this that completely invalidate it if they win.
I think Flynn might be the choice because he is a loyalist. The FBI investigation at this point is clearly a fraud to the right people so I think they would follow him
A friend of a friend had a sign on one of the right-wing marches in the UK that said 'Gerard Batten for Prime Minister. Tommy Robinson for Home Secretary' and someone asked him if he was serious about it and he said 'Yes. Because if Tommy gets in he'll go completely ham on them'
Now you might respond. "Gustav. your 'friend of a friend' sounds like a raving lunatic" and to be honest he kind of is. However, the principle in this case seems sound. If you want to fix a corrupt system appointing a victim of that system to do is the way to go.
>
Ezra Cohen-Watnick
Now there's a name I haven't heard
for a long time. The man no one knows is back in the spotlight.
He doesn't appear in photos. He can't even see himself in mirrors.
I don't know, it seems more likely that in the case that there is deemed to be sufficient evidence of fraud but it's been obfuscated too much to recount thoroughly before the electors vote, then direct appointment of electors is ruled an appropriate remedy as decided by state legislature in the contested states. I can't see the 5 conservative SCOTUS judges being against this verdict- I would even say Roberts might rule for it too, but considering I've never heard anything good about him I'll just assume he wouldn't. Besides, wasn't that essentially what they ruled, or were going to rule, in Bush v. Gore? This post got rainbow-bombed, but I don't see anything wrong with it, and is really the only precedent we have for something like this-
Yup. I don't think it's particularly optimistic to consider this outcome though. The media will say it's a DRUMPF COUP and BLM and AntiFa will riot 24/7 outside the state legislature if this passes. Another precedent we've got is that when the Democrats get pushed into a corner they use terror groups to try to filibuster the process. After the civil war, it was the KKK, now it is BLM and AntiFa. The Republicans used the Insurrection Act and Federal troops to crush the KKK and they will need to do the same to BLM and AntiFa. And you can imagine how the media will portray that. There is a significant optics problem with the population who haven't been told any history, don't know the law and everything they know about politics comes from the lügenpresse who will report '99.99999% of the public oppose the coup'
I know what the Republican endgame is and I know what the Democrat endgame is. I'm actually pretty pessimistic that public opinion will be with the Republicans in this. Even if it is, the press will be telling everyone it isn't.
Still given the situation I see no alternative other than giving up and accepting the Democrats steal all future elections.
7. With the Republican party line now firmly being “widespread election fraud happened”, the Senate could refuse to certify the result in Jan. Pence will lead that procedure, and will likely bring the issue up. Normally this is just a formality, but guess why there’s this one last step? If Senate refuses to certify, it goes to House where the vote is by delegation. Trump wins.
On Gorka's show they mused about how Pence had gone on holiday and said that 'this isn't the time for anyone to go on holiday'. Maybe he's going to stay out of reach of the Democrats and their media and terrorist allies for a bit secure in the knowledge he can swoop in and refuse to certify and force a contingent election.
I do think there are so many ways this Democrat coup can fail and that is a cause for optimism. It's worrying that the whole thing is basically a window for the Democrats terrorist allies to riot and their media allies to lie and gaslight though.
So, I just had something fairly disturbing brought to my attention. For the sake of minimizing the powerlevel, let's say that I live in a county that was polling on the upside of 40% for Trump. Given that in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, Trump managed to outperform poll projections, there is a decent argument to be made that Trump could have won my county. However, checking the actual ballot count, Trump came in at about 25% of the vote, with similar results for our congressman and state legislature. I am now faced with the possibility that my own county may have been stolen in the same manner as we are seeing in the battleground states, but I cannot be certain of this, as the county only achieved roughly 50% turnout. It's the kind of thing nobody would bat an eye about normally, as my county has a record of going blue, but it is sufficiently odd under current circumstances that I am considering going to my municipal and county governments to inquire about. Suggestion: check your own counties for weird shit, they may not have limited themselves to the big ticket areas.
I've been wondering about that too. After 2016 when the media kept going on about 'Hilary won the popular vote' someone found that significant numbers of non-citizens vote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-november-election/?utm_term=.950c538f32cc
https://archive.vn/wip/9hcUg
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
And CA passed a law decriminalizing noncitizens who vote
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote
I.e. it doesn't legalize illegals voting but it does decriminalize it in the sense they can't be prosecuted. Presumably, California Democrats told noncitizens it's 'fine' if they vote. And then if they do vote, they can't be prosecuted and the state can just say it was a clerical error.