The election litigation thread
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
So either all your hard work and research is going to be totally useless or you think your binder of affidavits from Rudy are going to be enough to start a coup.
Are you just waiting for the end of the 'stand down and stand by' command?
Last edited:
You avoided my question.. You cannot run a country based on what ifs. There is no credible evidence of any election fraud which would have affected the outcome. Not my opinion but that of 60 Courts. I agree that impeachment is not the answer but destroying democracy jn the name of chasing conspiracies which do not exist is no either.
SSo either all your hard work and research is going to be totally useless or you think your binder of affidavits from Rudy are going to be enough to start a coup.
Are you just waiting for the end of the 'stand down and stand by' command?
Does that mean you didn't read the article? Interestingly it was written by someone looking at removing Trump during the currency of his term, not looking at the 2020 election.
My question to you, and to others (except Frank) was simply whether anyone thinks there is any ability to re-run an election that is found to be fraudulent after the date that the sitting president was inaugurated. If not, that conclusion has some pretty profound consequences for elections and politics in the United States.
Aw, poor S.
You've admitted that there is no fraud, only theories of facts and laws that you hope might get revealed in 1 or 2 years.
It may appear rational to you, but the leader of your claims is batshit crazy yet you can't see it.
You're making the Qanon or pizzagate crowd look sane.
Even Trump is said to find Giuliani an embarrassment – so why does he keep him around?
The terrible twosome are both clinging to the mast of their wrecked vessel
www.independent.co.uk
Shack, I'm writing this short reply to save you some meaningless effort on your part. If you're writing these posts to support your pal/alter ego Frank, just know that you are not capable changing my view of his posts, or my perception of the value of responding to them in detail. If you're doing it to troll me, despite the fact I'm not trying to engage with you in any way, kindly grow up. If you're doing it to get my attention, consider that I have many posters trying to engage me in an exchanges in this thead. I'm not likely to choose to respond to the posts that don't say anything intelligent. It's not hard to notice the common thread in the posts that I respond to (if you are trying to start a real discussion).
SAw, poor S.
You've admitted that there is no fraud, only theories of facts and laws that you hope might get revealed in 1 or 2 years.
It may appear rational to you, but the leader of your claims is batshit crazy yet you can't see it.
You're making the Qanon or pizzagate crowd look sane.
Even Trump is said to find Giuliani an embarrassment – so why does he keep him around?
The terrible twosome are both clinging to the mast of their wrecked vessel
S
Despite Rudy and every GOP operative looking they haven't found any cases of fraud. You're living a fantasy.
You know full well you'll have to wait four years for another election, there is no mechanism, no do-overs because Rudy says so.
All we do is ask you for one legit example of fraud and all you can answer is 's'.
Yet you do respond, and each time I know that 's' stands for 'score' on my part.
Yet another post you can't respond to honestly, 60 losses in court, your insane belief that Rudy is legit and conspiracy theories are real, and your dunning-kruger belief that you are the best legal mind in this thread.
So many 'scores' that hit home, S.
I do not believe that the constitution contemplated such an event. But there is a possibility that in such circumstances to SCOTUS could declare the election a nullity if the outcome had been determined to be fraudulently. There is a line of succession. The VP would be equally tainted in which case it goes next I think to the Speaker.
My question to you which once again you have avoided is what should have been done if 2 years into a term it turned out the POTUS had colluded with a foreign government to influence the outcome or was in fact subject to kompromat etc.
Only in the age of the soon to be former autocrat wannabe in chief would people be discussing these issues. That is the hard he has done to the US and its so called democracy.
So please explain how S is something intelligent. It looks like a really dumb thing to keep posting over and over and over. It says and means nothing. It is equivalent to d'uh, unless you want to explain how S means anything at all, let alone something that furthers a debate. And why S, and not some other letter? You are better off saying nothing to posts that are not worthy of a response.
I didn't avoid your question. I actually answered your question by referring you to the article, at least in part. If you are asking me the hypothetical of what I think should happen (rather than a legal opinion) if a President is elected and inaugurated fraudulently, I think if the fraud is directed by that President, he/she should simply be removed and a new election ordered for which the deposed President is an ineligible candidate, if it was directed by other parties, there should be a removal and new election ordered where both candidates can, again, stand for election. However, as the article discloses, there is serious doubt by many whether the constitution can be interpreted to allow for this remedy. While impeachment is possible, it can be easily thwarted. I'm not confident that even clear fraud would force BOTH parties to allow that process to operate.
What leads to this discussion is not the personalities involved in this election, but rather the inability or unwillingness of the legal system to allow the allegations being made to be fully and openly tested in a prompt fashion. As a result, it appears more and more likely to me that this litigation, as well as legislative branch hearings into the election security issues being raised, are likely to continue as much as 1 -2 years into the next presidency before being finally resolved, and that more and more allegations will be advanced as the process moves forward. What the final assessment of these allegations will be is difficult to predict.
If you don't know what S means, you've overlooked the start of the thread.
While I'm not sure why this is any concern of yours, I'll offer a brief explanation. It should be obvious to you that I am not trying to engage in any exchange with Frank. I've made that clear to him. He is, however, perpetually trying to engage in exchanges with me (something about him being the guardian of truth, justice, and the Canadian way). I've tried responding in detail to his posts before. It's pointless. His posts really are all stupid, in such a multiplicity of ways - everything from mistating the arguments he purports to answer, to meaningless trolling, to irrational leaps of logic, to asserting himself as an expert in areas he can't possibly be one, to restating the same unpersuasive points and materials over and over, to weird and unfounded assertions of groupthink support for his opinions, and much, much more. It's a chore rather than a pleasure to disassemble each one of his posts, and really it's to no avail. He just comes back with more of the same. I honestly believe that no one cares about such exchanges anyway. Frank is the guy who always shows up at the same parties you do, annoys everyone with his inane opinions but can't even accept a polite, "please excuse me, but I'd really prefer not to talk to you about this". Instead he follows you around this party, inserting himself into your conversations with others.
So I'm trying something different. What's interesting is that it hasn't changed his approach one bit, thereby confirming everything I've said above. However, so far, I'm enjoying it much better, and it sure saves on the keystrokes. If it's bothering you, it's pretty easy for you to avoid reading, given how short my posts to Frank are.
Last edited:
