re: I think I’ve finally found the 2020 Election Fraud

quote:

---

So definitely illegal in some state?

---

I'm sure. Not sure which one. The only one I looked at was MI because of the whole "alternate elector" thing there. And MI did not have a LAW requiring them to follow the popular vote. BUT, they are sworn (oath) to follow the direction of the state's executive branch. So still not illegal, criminally, but could incur civil penalties from violating that oath.

One of the things referenced in that other thread is that in the 2016 election 7 electors did not follow the popular vote and presented for HRC. It was challenged and the VP (Biden) chose to not reject them. This is exactly what Trump sought to do.

quote:

---

Challenging happens via the court system. There's clearly established election precedent your citing right there actually.

---

there's a clearly defined process for challenging at the certification process in front of a joint session of congress presided over by the VP. The courts are only involved, as in Bush v. Gore pror to reaching this prescribed date. Challening electors happens quite often at certification. The rejection of electors by the VP is very rare (only happned once) and the house [only] will select the president if there is a tie (happened once) OR the joint congress decides to overturn the election (never has happened). But yes, at this certification the constitution does allow for deciding elections- it is the backstop to fraud by design. The courts, as defined by the constitution, have no prescribed role at the national level. The courts only have a role at the state level in deciding that state's electors, as in Bush v. Gore. It was all FL courts until two FL courts could not agree (appeals) and then, and only then, did SCOTUS step in. Even then, the FL sec. of state had to request it because the constitution is very clear that the states will decide their own electors, however they want to. To give you a crazy example, TX could do rock paper scissors if that's how their state legislature decided it will be done.

quote:

---

Based on those docs he shot for a delay with hopes of getting arguments to overturn.

---

yes, that's quite clear. The constitution does not allow for this. If basically says if a delay is needed you should overturn it and hand it off to the house of representatives. I think it actually prescribes within 6 hours. It is that clear and prescribed. That was their strategic mistake, delay to give them time to fight it in the state courts, state by state (which is what you have to do). But no delay is allowed. If Pence had refused to certify (which is not possible, he can only reject specific electors), but if he had, it would have gone straight to the house and no courts. That day.

quote:

---

Let me put it a different way. Him and a group of friends were outside the house, they talked about breaking in, determined best route of entry and had a plan, they went up to the window they planned and found it locked preventing their plan. Is that not conspiracy to commit a crime?

---

actually, no. for a conspiracy, including RICO statues which is a form of conspiracy, there still needs to be a predicate crime committed. Planning to kill somebody, even if you write it in a journal and make maps might get you a 48 hr. psych eval, but it isn't attempted murder.

quote:

---

Challenging happens via the court system. There's clearly established election precedent your citing right there actually. It was ruled on and we moved on. Gore didn't then try to get a second set of electors in Florida to show up and dispute the outcome. That's the difference.

---

this one deserves a more detailed answer....

people forget SCOTUS has two roles really:
1. Are the laws passed by any legislative body constitutional?
2. Settle legal issues between 2 (or more) states or state vs. fed.

So the constitution....
A) does not say how states will decide electors
B) does not allow for states to interfere in each others selection; one state can not challenge another state.

So, when it comes to electors, SCOTUS really has no role whatsoever. There is no constitutional question because the constitution has only two rules that apply to the states:
1. electors can not hold fed office (and the VP is to reject them and state replace them)
2. the state is required to present electors equal to the number of senators (2) and representatives. They can't opt out; no more, no less.

So looking to SCOTUS for help is fools gold. But we've all assumed that it is just the "highest court". In a way it isn't. A state court may decide if a law makes sense. SCOTUS does not, if if it's stupid as hell, they only care if it is unconstitutional.

So forget about SCOTUS, they got no dog in the elector hunt, specifically, because it is purely a state issue and will never be a state vs. state conflict.

So here's the rub with 2020 specifically. It's a catch-22....

A) on one hand states made all kinds of exceptions, sometimes without required legislative processes, because of Covid. Covid this, covid that. Break rules, make new rules, change this on a whim, etc. That was Trump's lawyers contention that each state, state by state, violated their election law.

B) on the other hand, the constitution said "zero fricks given. I don't care what you did in your state". Because... there is no constitutional guidelines how that state selects it's electors. Break rules, rock paper scissors, guy with biggest dick picks 'em.... the constitution doesn't care as long as they weren't elected officials.

2020 was stuck in between those two.

quote:

---

an election that had about 20 to 30 statistical anomolies that never even happened in the past. You gotta be blind drunk or stupid or brainwashed not to see that election had lots of problems.

---

It's too bad we don't have credible election systems that are fully auditable and transparent.

A system like that would put to rest all of these questions.

Imagine if we had paper ballots only. You could count and recount them a thousand times and get the same answer. No one would have any questions and the winner would be deemed valid.

Boosie is an a-hole, but that doesn’t change the fact that Trump went full retard after the election. 98% of this board would have called it a coup if Dems did the same thing. What was supposed to happen after J6? A six month Cyber Ninjas audit in the swing states?

quote:

---

What DOJ regulation states to pause an ongoing prosecution because of political reasons?

---

What DOJ regulation states it's ok to initiate surveillance on a political opponent and begin an investigation on an incoming administration based on fabricated evidence?

This whole thing isn’t politically motivated at all by Jack Smith, lol. The timing is purely a coincidence, haha. Jack Smith has made himself a joke for political purposes.

It’s amazing how many attorneys are retarded.

quote:

---

This is the safe space for all the progressives licking their wounds after the debate.

---

Things are going so badly that they’re posting Jack Smith cases… who might be the biggest joke ever to work for DOJ. Just a legendary frickup.

You got enough spam in this thread to feed Hawaii for a week