Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

[Zachowon]

So... Not the Clinton's or Soros, not Pelosi or Biden/Kamala, not in fact any of the obvious "suspects". Instead, it was some random Venezuelans who were organising "fake" pipe breakages and "secret" deliveries of ballots in clearly marked vans, the perfect lock step messaging of the media and every big tech company?

Geez, you'd think if a couple of random nobodies in a failed South American country had that kinda power they'd be running it themselves and living in a nicer country. That's just such a bizarre pick for the crazy conspiracy ringleader claim.

Is there even any legal cases left trying to argue this incomprehensible gibberish? I know Trump has swung from messaging about the mountains of fraud evidence and how he looks forward to presenting it in court, to saying the Texas case is the "big one" despite its focus on issues of beuracratic constitutionality rather than anything even bordering on fraud.

Because it is a lot harder to dig into such things when the agency that handles FISA is currently working against you, so you go after the foreign ones since you can get easier access to those through the IC.
We know Soros, the Clintons and Pelosi all have stakes in the company Smartmatic, in some way or another, via one of their companies, or they themselves apart of it.
How hard is it to go after the clintons? Why don't we ask Epstein who did not kill himself....

 

[Megadeath]

Because it is a lot harder to dig into such things when the agency that handles FISA is currently working against you, so you go after the foreign ones since you can get easier access to those through the IC.
We know Soros, the Clintons and Pelosi all have stakes in the company Smartmatic, in some way or another, via one of their companies, or they themselves apart of it.
How hard is it to go after the clintons? Why don't we ask Epstein who did not kill himself....

Uh huh... But, the message doesn't say "These are the ones we can get at." It says they "led the effort" and they "planned and executed" it. I'd also love to see your evidence that they're involved with Smartmatic (Keeping in mind the difference between "evidence" and "claim") or your reasoning for pinning Epstein on the Clinton's, rather than his old buddy Donald, who had a lot more actual power to organise something like that, or the British royal family who definitely have more power and connections than a couple of slightly washed up American politicians.

 

[UberSink]

Geez, you'd think if a couple of random nobodies in a failed South American country had that kinda power they'd be running it themselves and living in a nicer country. That's just such a bizarre pick for the crazy conspiracy ringleader claim.

They hate America, doesn't make them able to run a country but jt might help them fuck things up

 

[Zachowon]

Uh huh... But, the message doesn't say "These are the ones we can get at." It says they "led the effort" and they "planned and executed" it. I'd also love to see your evidence that they're involved with Smartmatic (Keeping in mind the difference between "evidence" and "claim") or your reasoning for pinning Epstein on the Clinton's, rather than his old buddy Donald, who had a lot more actual power to organise something like that, or the British royal family who definitely have more power and connections than a couple of slightly washed up American politicians.

I mean I legally am not allowed to do such research woth what I would like to.
I probably could but yeah I like my life to much

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Point of order: Republican majority is in Senate, not House... Did you mean that the Senate votes on the new president, or is it in fact the house, which means invalidating the election would hand it back to the Democrats?

The Constitution specifies that for voting to appoint the President in the absence of a President-Elect, each state gets only one vote.

 

[Zachowon]

The Constitution specifies that for voting to appoint the President in the absence of a President-Elect, each state gets only one vote.

So I had gassed rightmyou ment that

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Really is comes to the state legislature. Which each GOV can call special elections

As I think I mentioned earlier in thread, in the very earliest days several of the states had electors directly appointed by the state legislature with no input by the general public; but those days are long past. What it comes down to in the modern day is that the state legislature has the authority to set the terms of the election by law, within whatever limits Congress hands down by its own explicit Constitutional authority; however, neither the state nor Congress can retroactively change those terms during an election.

 

[Zachowon]

As I think I mentioned earlier in thread, in the very earliest days several of the states had electors directly appointed by the state legislature with no input by the general public; but those days are long past. What it comes down to in the modern day is that the state legislature has the authority to set the terms of the election by law, within whatever limits Congress hands down by its own explicit Constitutional authority; however, neither the state nor Congress can retroactively change those terms during an election.

I was just telling them what I thought you had said.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I was just telling them what I thought you had said.

I was responding to a different comment you made, not the comment on what you thought I said.

 

[Megadeath]

I was responding to a different comment you made, not the comment on what you thought I said.

I thought you were saying, that what he thought you seemed to be saying, in the post you said you were talking about rather than the post he thought you were talking about was the same as what his other post said you thought?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I thought you were saying, that what he thought you seemed to be saying, in the post you said you were talking about rather than the post he thought you were talking about was the same as what his other post said you thought?

Uh, no. One comment was about the United States Congress voting to decide who becomes President as defined in the Constitution, the other comment was about *state legislatures* having the authority to override the election results from their states. Two completely different levels of hypothetical intervention into the election, and one of them is very shaky.

 

[random_boy232]

The Constitution specifies that for voting to appoint the President in the absence of a President-Elect, each state gets only one vote.

Congressional delegation get's one vote, The House could with a majority vote just exclude all the representatives from the states where this fraud is alleged to have happened Wi,MI,PA and GA which all have majority republican/tied house delegations meaning the democrats would have the majority of state house delegations. They could then just vote for Biden that way.

That's also never gonna happen cause there the supreme court isn't going to do anything with regards to the pile of garbage that texas has sent it's way.

 

[Zachowon]

Congressional delegation get's one vote, The House could with a majority vote just exclude all the representatives from the states where this fraud is alleged to have happened Wi,MI,PA and GA which all have majority republican/tied house delegations meaning the democrats would have the majority of state house delegations. They could then just vote for Biden that way.

That's also never gonna happen cause there the supreme court isn't going to do anything with regards to the pile of garbage that texas has sent it's way.

How is it a hot mess? They have a VERY valid claim.....

 

[Megadeath]

Uh, no. One comment was about the United States Congress voting to decide who becomes President as defined in the Constitution, the other comment was about *state legislatures* having the authority to override the election results from their states. Two completely different levels of hypothetical intervention into the election, and one of them is very shaky.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying..?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Congressional delegation get's one vote, The House could with a majority vote just exclude all the representatives from the states where this fraud is alleged to have happened Wi,MI,PA and GA which all have majority republican/tied house delegations meaning the democrats would have the majority of state house delegations. They could then just vote for Biden that way.

However, my point was simply that Zachowon's claim that a nullified election would automatically mean that "Trump would get a free four years" is completely incorrect. What the Constitution specifies is an immediate House vote if the certified votes presented to the House are not "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed", and if the House deadlocks up to the hard deadline of March 4th, the Vice President becomes Acting President.

The exact wording of the relevant section of the 12th Amendment is:

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President."​

​

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.​

The fact that there is a quorum requirement of only two-thirds does in theory permit the exclusion of entire state delegations as you suggest while still having a Constitutionally valid vote, although this would be an incredibly dangerous move.

Beyond this, there are procedures specified in standing federal law, 3 USC 15, as last amended in 1948:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.​

​

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.​

​

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.​

​

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.​

I think the key point here is that any Congressional dispute of the validity of a State's certified and transmitted electoral votes requires the concurrence of the House and Senate, and it is clearly and explicitly specified that if the House and Senate deadlock, the electoral votes are counted rather than discounted. Given that the current partisan makeup of the Congress all but guarantees deadlock on such a challenge, the specifications of the law would clearly indicate that challenges *within Congress* of certified electoral votes would not succeed.

Ergo, the only way it even *gets to* a Congressional vote is if the federal court challenges succeed in *preventing* certification of the electoral votes by the states prior to the deadline.

 

[Terthna]

I think we can all acknowledge that people on one side believe that there was fraud, while those on the other believe that there was not. Further, it is clear that neither side will ever convince the other that they are wrong, and whatever the outcome of this election; one side, or the other, will not recognize the legitimacy of whomever is declared president of the United States of America.

What exactly is that going to mean for our nation going forward? Because whatever your feelings on the past four years, it's safe to say that the next four will make them pale in comparison. There is already talk, from both sides, of refusing to cooperate with an illegitimate federal government; even of secession, in circles that don't normally consider it. Whatever happens, any talk of "unity" amongst the peoples of this country seems like either wishful thinking, or little more than empty platitudes nobody actually means.

We're probably going to start killing each other soon; I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. Even more disturbing is the possibility of other countries getting involved and picking sides in our conflict with each other; the whole thing might escalate into a full blown World War. In the worst case, it seems like future generations will have good cause to despise those of us who are alive today, for allowing all of this to happen.

 

[Bigking321]

We're probably going to start killing each other soon

Start? They already had someone hunt down and murder someone for being a Trump supporter at a rally. That was months ago.

 

[Terthna]

Start? They already had someone hunt down and murder someone for being a Trump supporter at a rally. That was months ago.

True, but that's just one side killing; and not in so great a number for the current conflict to be considered what we would traditionally deem a "war". When the other side begins to respond in kind, that's when things will escalate rapidly.

 

[Typhonis]

Didn't we have a democrat warn Republicans that she had soldiers of her own and to be warry of them?

 

[random_boy232]

How is it a hot mess? They have a VERY valid claim.....

They have no standing, the drafting is sloppy containing many basic factual mistakes, the statistical analysis assumes no shifts between 2016 and 2020 which is obviously not True, other affidavits have already been thrown out of court, the equal protection claim is absurd, it's a terrible case that's an attempt by paxton to get a federal pardon.