2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Übertroon]

So, our only hope is if SCOTUS takes up Alito's Pennsylvania case by midnight tonight?

I mean this thing was supposed to be over weeks ago, who would have back in November that Texas was going to sue the states?

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Trump's own lawyers under oath: "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud". Trump's own AG: "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud".

Keyword: Widespread. Define it, and you'll see why the lawyers would not claim to have evidence of widespread voter fraud.

 

[Random Internet Person]

So, our only hope is if SCOTUS takes up Alito's Pennsylvania case by midnight tonight?

Looks like it. I wouldn't hold my breath because this is Trump we're dealing with.

This really isn't a smoking gun on voter fraud issues in this year's election, but god damn. So Patrick Gaspard, President of the Open Society Foundations (AKA: George Soros' most well known cultural poisoning vehicle), is stepping down amid speculation that he'll be tapped as Secretary of Labor in Biden's cabinet. Taking his place is Mark Malloch-Brown, who among other things is the President of SGO Corporation, which is a holding company that owns Smartmatic. Yes, the voting software company that has been the subject of a bunch of controversy. Smartmatic wants the world to know that it is totally on the up and up, and would never do anything to undermine any election where its software is used. In fact it's so honest, it has a couple different pages of angry "ACKSHULLY" on its official website.

Yes, I know Smartmatic supposedly wasn't used in any of the contested states and blah blah blah, but Jesus Christ this just seems fishy. The Open Society Foundations is obviously well known for being extremely active in politics and pushing the most toxic of progressive trash ideology all over the world. Now the guy in charge of a very prolific voting software platform is going to be in charge of that wretched organization? Just how in the fuck does this NOT look ridiculously corrupt to any reasonable person?

Progressive utopia is coming. The only question is if Biden and Harris can bring it to fruition fast enough for Democrats to be satisfied.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Trump's own lawyers under oath: "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud". Trump's own AG: "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud".

Imagine not taking most of last month to bet on Biden for a free 10%

 

[Nathan Higgers]

(You)

5000+ affidavits and video aren't evidence.

It's only enough to convict someone of murder 100 times over. No big deal.

Not necessarily. e.g. if the murdered person had covid, it wouldn't be murder, but death by covid.

Bear with me here. Imagine you have 1000 people seeing someone stab someone else in the heart. While it's true that those people *saw* an assault take place, they did not see murder take place. For all we know, the assaulted person may have an heroed himself.

Now, let's get back to this crazy interplanetary voter fraud conspiracy (which has been deboonked) thing. Yes, maybe there was some irregularities in the way the votes were counted, but they were nowhere near what the Trump camp (and the crazy batfuck insane Qtards) claim and they certainly would not turn the election for Trump, furthermore, they certainly were not interplanetary,

Just so you know, many counties did a recount and found 10 milion more votes for Biden. If anything, the supposed fraud caused Biden the actual harm, not Trump.

 

[JohnDoe]

So, our only hope is if SCOTUS takes up Alito's Pennsylvania case by midnight tonight?

No. It isn't over until the inauguration.

 

[mandatorylurk]

I wonder if other states can also join with Texas. Florida would likely jump in as well as other southern states.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Jenna Ellis just got diagnosed with COVID, both main lawyers now have covid-19

 

[Bartleby]

Tonight is safe harbor.

You need something conclusive by tonight - not a lingering court case, not a promise to file more cases, not a youtube video, a conclusive "yes, this happened and invalidates so-and-so votes."

Now, it is true that if the states, for some reason, actually found a problem, you could trigger this one :

Say, for re-doing their election. So long as it doesn't violate that first one -- so, what, election before midnight? Find the flaw before midnight and host a new election before the 14th?

But it is particular about the electoral procedure:

Hence safe harbor being from midnight to the 14th.

Your suggestion is that Congress will somehow overturn the electoral votes and trigger an election re-do? That's the hope and the gambit?

Alright, so, for anyone wedded to reality, you've got until midnight tonight to get enough legislatures to declare that there's a problem which prevents them from choosing electors OR enough suits which affirm that there is a problem. So chop-chop, better hurry.

Conclusive refers to the determination of any controversy or contest as is said in the very section you cited, and all of the contested states have pending cases that have not been determined yet. A contingent election is not a "re-do" by the way, it's a House vote where each state is delegated one vote, and an absolute majority of 26 states is required to elect a president. The actual reality (the one you're wedded to) of the situation is that the safe harbor deadline is not a hard deadline, no matter how much you want it to be, and it never was. And there's more than enough prima facie (two words I suggest anyone thinking there's no evidence of fraud look into) evidence to affirm that yes, there is indeed a problem, one that hasn't been effectively disproved or rebutted whatsoever despite there being a very easy method to do so (you know, audits). Should be pointed out that in Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS justices like RBG argued that neither of the dates in December are strictly constitutional, by the way.

 

[Random Internet Person]

Jenna Ellis just got diagnosed with COVID, both main lawyers now have covid-19

This sucks. Everything seems to be going wrong just when the clock is about to strike zero.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

The Thomas More Society filed a brief claiming that the only constitutional hard-coded date is the 20th of January. It's true that federal law sets other deadlines

But, that's a well-cited post.

It's not clear which way the SCOTUS will rule on this stuff.

This is a pedantic argument from them. Yes, technically, the constitution mentions march 4th and the 20th amendment mentions the 20th of january.

The suggestion here is that you would throw out the the entirety of the US Code - but you'd still be up a creek.

The constitution Article II Section I specifies the use of electors to nominate the president. It also states "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." Which means that the constitution endorses the use of the US Code.

Conclusive refers to the determination of any controversy or contest as is said in the very section you cited, and all of the contested states have pending cases that have not been determined yet. A contingent election is not a "re-do" by the way, it's a House vote where each state is delegated one vote, and an absolute majority of 26 states is required to elect a president. The actual reality (the one you're wedded to) of the situation is that the safe harbor deadline is not a hard deadline, no matter how much you want it to be, and it never was. And there's more than enough prima facie (two words I suggest anyone thinking there's no evidence of fraud look into) evidence to affirm that yes, there is indeed a problem, one that hasn't been effectively disproved or rebutted whatsoever despite there being a very easy method to do so (you know, audits). Should be pointed out that in Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS justices like RBG argued that neither of the dates in December are strictly constitutional, by the way.

Hahahah. Conclusive means pending? The controversy as regards the nomination of the electors is not that someone alleges controversy, or else literally every sore loser in history could have bogged it down with frivalous lawsuits that go nowhere.

But alright, mix-up of terms. See, the contingent election triggers if a candidate doesn't hit the absolute majority of electoral votes. I thought the suggestion was that the Congress would just unilaterally reject the vote, which seems unrealistic to me. So yes, if you can get conclusive controversy down by tonight and somehow flag enough votes that there is no majority in the college, you can trigger the ol' 12th amendment.

As regards the consitutionality, sure, as above. It's a technicality. As regards prima facie, it appears that there haven't been much success in the courts in doing that - a lot of those affidavits have been given to committees that deem them unreliable, and a lot of the video evidence seems to be getting rebutted by affidavits from election officials, like that atlanta state farm arena thing. You could try to lodge a court case in the same way, but thusfar it doesn't at all appear to be prima facie to anyone with authority in government. Indeed, it appears to be "claim - rebuttal - actually that rebuttal is totally false and while I can't make a specific statement just look at this footage right here does that not look right - rebuttal - you're a democrat plant".

But, yeah, prove me wrong. Lodge something tonight that disputes the electoral vote. Or don't, and then try again to dispute it and drag that case to the SCOTUS to argue the merits of Safe Harbor.

 

[Stoneheart]

Yes, maybe there was some irregularities in the way the votes were counted, but they were nowhere near what the Trump camp (and the crazy batfuck insane Qtards) claim and they certainly would not turn the election for Trump, furthermore, they certainly were not interplanetary,

Than execute those minor fraudsters and move on.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Keyword: Widespread. Define it, and you'll see why the lawyers would not claim to have evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Widespread is considered enough to overturn the election results. There was a whopping two cases of election fraud in PA, both of which were towards Trump.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I wonder if other states can also join with Texas. Florida would likely jump in as well as other southern states.

It's a bit late for them to do so considering how fast this is going to move, but they certainly could send in Amicus Briefs in support of Texas.

It cannot be understated how huge this move by Texas is. The Courts can try and sidestep the fire and fury of Trump. He's just one dude railing against the wind. They cant really ignore a Union State demanding they address what are tbqh very serious constitutional questions.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

This sucks. Everything seems to be going wrong just when the clock is about to strike zero.

Meh, maybe? Giuliani and Ellis didn't pass the SCOTUS bar, Ted Cruz will be arguing the case in SCOTUS. They kinda already did their jobs with collecting evidence and the hearings.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Texas coming in like.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Widespread is considered enough to overturn the election results. There was a whopping two cases of election fraud in PA, both of which were towards Trump.

You misunderstood what I said. Even if you had a plethora of cases in one state, the term widespread is heavily loose. Widespread could imply across the US (which multiple states the concept of widespread would be different from one singular state) and this issue, would make it to prove such a claim in court. Any term that in a legal battle would lead to a contextual change regardless of situation is usually best avoided.

Let's say PA found 20 cases, is that enough to declare evidence of widespread voter fraud? Possibly or maybe not, what about 50? What about 100, what about 200?

To make an easy example using math:

To a poor person having $1000.00 may seem like a lot of money. To a rich person that may seem like a small amount of money. To the rich $1,000,000.00 may seem like a lot of money. The context changes depending to who you address the claim to.

It's the same in a court of law, a case where a concept is contextual is not the best argument to present or make a claim on, especially if you don't know if the context will be accepted by all sides.

That doesn't mean your claim is wrong by saying there is little evidence, but even if there was far more cases, most lawyers wouldn't claim a contextually challenging claim because it would directly effect their credibility. It's why the term and terms like widespread are heavily disingenuous even if true.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

It's a bit late for them to do so considering how fast this is going to move, but they certainly could send in Amicus Briefs in support of Texas.

It cannot be understated how huge this move by Texas is. The Courts can try and sidestep the fire and fury of Trump. He's just one dude railing against the wind. They cant really ignore a Union State demanding they address what are tbqh very serious constitutional questions.

Lol no they can ignore it, because it's unprecedentedly retarded.

On the other hand, a state suing another state is actually a scenario in which a case could, in theory, go straight to the Supreme Court, so unlike all the other retarded shit you Biden-deniers are bleating about, at least that's 'valid'.

 

[CrippleThreat]

Maybe a Biden Presidency will have its own flavor on fun? Anywho, the left will be absolutely seething on how much they got played. Well, at the very least, any new wars that start will be on the Democrats and Leftist this time.
View attachment 1774206

"...aren't looking for a handout..."

Good to know that Democrats don't know why their strongest voter block never wanes.

Jenna Ellis just got diagnosed with COVID, both main lawyers now have covid-19

Again, I thank Trump for giving us this Oscar Gold material. Or it's just God writing his magnum opus.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Meh, maybe? Giuliani and Ellis didn't pass the SCOTUS bar, Ted Cruz will be arguing the case in SCOTUS. They kinda already did their jobs with collecting evidence and the hearings.

Imagine how he feels, a Cuban American with a major US patriotism boner, getting to argue this case. The problem with that case is that at most it affects the PA electors.

It cannot be understated how huge this move by Texas is. The Courts can try and sidestep the fire and fury of Trump. He's just one dude railing against the wind. They cant really ignore a Union State demanding they address what are tbqh very serious constitutional questions.

Yup. Unlike the PA case, this case has limitless potential.