• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Oh, my! Are you missing out, then. The article tells us, very clearly, that Rep. Daniel McCarthy (I'm assume sales Rep of some kind) has a letter (quantity 1) from Arizona legislators (quantity unspecified, but probably as many as 4) invoking Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Maybe he is the Representative of Edison County, Michigan.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Many things that should make the news do not make the news. Has Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper said anything about Ruby Freeman? Did they say anything about Hunter Biden's laptop? Joe's inappropriate showers with his daughter? Has the media pointed out that pulling a dog's tail can seriously injure the animal and that doing so while in the nude is kind of weird way to break your foot?
Click to expand...

And what about the communism? I hear you Nazi types are against that sort of thing.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Well, we know that in 2016 the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign to steal the election from Hillary. This is a simple fact of history that nobody disputes today except for conspiracy theorists. We were warned earlier this year that there were signs of Russia attempting to interfere with the elections again. e. So, yes, it is entirely plausible that Russia did indeed steal the election. Whether or not China, the CIA, and Barr were also involved doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Well, they tried anyway. Are you saying they didn't try hard enough this time?
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I presume it is meant to refer to the counting of votes in Congress, where the votes could be challenged, although under Federal law, not the Constitution. (See my previous post.)
Click to expand...

I was assuming it referred to the provision where state legislatures provide for how the slate of electors are selected. (That's the thing McCarthy -- curious name coincidence -- was "invoking".) The assertion is that the Arizona State legislature could intervene at this point to put forth a substitute slate, overriding the one certified by the Secretary of State.

I believe the Safe Harbor legislation precludes that (as of a few hours from now at least, so they better act fast).
 
Bubba said:
Guys, I think we need to chant "Its over" louder.

https://newsla.localad.com/2020/12/...g-arizona-is-officially-a-contested-election/
Click to expand...

You are American, I am not, but it seems I have a far better understanding of the US Laws and Constitution than you do.

Safe Harbour date has been reached, and Arizona has already certified its election. That means legal challenges for the Arizona election are over.. period!

Its over! If they try it on, the judge will simply toss it out under 3 USC § 5, without even looking at the case.

ETA: Oh, and there is this


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-gop-pennsylvania-suit-overturn-election-results/
 
Last edited:
sphenisc said:
Does the Safe Harbor thing mean it's literally all over or are there filings/cases/whatever still in process which could theoretically affect 'something'?
Click to expand...

"Safe Harbour" means its over for states that have certified their election results - that is, over as in no further legal challenges to election results are allowed in those states. So far, 45 of the 50 states have certified - only five (Missouri, Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey and Idaho) have not. Theoretically there could till be legal challenges in those five states, but there are not enough EC votes in those states to overturn the outcome - Biden has won, end of story.
 
jsfisher said:
I was assuming it referred to the provision where state legislatures provide for how the slate of electors are selected. (That's the thing McCarthy -- curious name coincidence -- was "invoking".) The assertion is that the Arizona State legislature could intervene at this point to put forth a substitute slate, overriding the one certified by the Secretary of State.

I believe the Safe Harbor legislation precludes that (as of a few hours from now at least, so they better act fast).
Click to expand...

But that would have to be challenged in court, and he says this was a letter sent to Pence. So I assume he meant 3 USC 15, which specifies how the votes are counted as required by Art II Sec 1. But...whatever.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
"Safe Harbour" means its over for states that have certified their election results - that is, over as in no further legal challenges to election results are allowed in those states. So far, 45 of the 50 states have certified - only five (Missouri, Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey and Idaho) have not. Theoretically there could till be legal challenges in those five states, but there are not enough EC votes in those states to overturn the outcome - Biden has won, end of story.
Click to expand...

There can still be legal challenges, but overturning any decision after the safe harbor date puts that state's electoral votes in jeopardy of being thrown out by Congress.

If, for example, after the safe harbor date there became available rock solid proof that the election results were wrong, I expect a state court would overturn the decision. Or, more likely, state officials would change the decision. Validate votes that may be a risk are better than invalidate votes that are safe. The courts have to weigh those options.

States courts are going to be very reluctant to put their state's votes in jeopardy. Federal courts are going to be very reluctant to put a state's votes in jeopardy against their will. The remedy could likely be more harmful than any harm caused.

It doesn't end anything, but it puts a big stone on the scale to not overturn any decision that has already been made.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
There can still be legal challenges, but overturning any decision after the safe harbor date puts that state's electoral votes in jeopardy of being thrown out by Congress.

If, for example, after the safe harbor date there became available rock solid proof that the election results were wrong, I expect a state court would overturn the decision. Or, more likely, state officials would change the decision. Validate votes that may be a risk are better than invalidate votes that are safe. The courts have to weigh those options.

States courts are going to be very reluctant to put their state's votes in jeopardy. Federal courts are going to be very reluctant to put a state's votes in jeopardy against their will. The remedy could likely be more harmful than any harm caused.

It doesn't end anything, but it puts a big stone on the scale to not overturn any decision that has already been made.
Click to expand...

You are talking "angels on pin heads" theoretical here.

In the real world, none of this will happen.
 
8enotto said:
A RETIRED general can call for dancing girls and plastic pink flamingos at his military tribunals all he wants, but he has no power over anyone or any military unit to make it happen.

Another nutcase making wild claims it seems.

A judge explained in detail why sworn affidavit evidence is worthless in court.
Any attorney, other than teem crackenn lawyers, would know that one or a million of them are all of equal value.

Unless recycling paper is your business.
Click to expand...

If you reject affidavit evidence--i.e., sworn eyewitness testimony--you have just dismissed with a wave of your hand about 99% of the evidence for the Holocaust.

Is that where you want to go?
 
dudalb said:
Supreme Court just threw out a suit contesting the election results TRump's legal efforts are dead, over, finished.
Click to expand...

More's to the point, the order has no justice's names attached.

@Bubba, do you know what that means? It means that three the Trump-appointed judges told Trump's lackey lawyers to ****-off; it means the other three conservative judges also told Trump's lackey lawyers to ****-off!

9-0. That is what it means. SCOTUS voted 9-0 to give Trump and his sycophants the archer!
 
smartcooky said:
More's to the point, the order has no justice's names attached.

@Bubba, do you know what that means? It means that three the Trump-appointed judges told Trump's lackey lawyers to ****-off; it means the other three conservative judges also told Trump's lackey lawyers to ****-off!

9-0. That is what it means. SCOTUS voted 9-0 to give Trump and his sycophants the archer!
Click to expand...

To nitpick, we don't really know that. I believe that if such a motion is referred to the court, it would require four Justices to review because that is that statutory quorum for the Court. So it theoretically could have been a 5-4 vote or 3-1, with those voting against choosing not to write a dissenting opinion.

But...very probably not. Probably all of the Justices reviewed the motion. And it is very likely it was 9-0.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom