PA Legislature Plans to Take Back Power to Send Electors to Electoral College

[B00Mer]

PA Legislature Plans to Take Back Power to Send Electors to Electoral College

If the governor of that state won't do his job, the state legislature will... Checkmate Liberals

PA Legislature Plans to Take Back Power to Send Electors to Electoral College | The Washington Pundit

Pennsylvania's legislature will begin the process to reclaim it's power under the Constitution to appoint the state's electors to the Electoral College. According to Senator Doug Mastriano…

twpundit.com

Pennsylvania GOP Legislature Will Seek to Reclaim Power to Appoint Electors: State Senator

www.theepochtimes.com

...and Trump wins 2020!!!!

 

[Serryah]

If they actually do that, then they're all for starting a real shitstorm with it. Penn was certified by Biden fairly.

Cryharder.

 

[B00Mer]

If they actually do that, then they're all for starting a real shitstorm with it. Penn was certified by Biden fairly.

Cryharder.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent out 1,823,148 absentee or mail-in ballots. They received back 1.4 million approximately. However, in the count for president, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for the 700,000 difference between the ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count.

It was fraud out and out.. The Electoral College sees that and can give the 20 points to Trump..

No, YOU cry harder.. The Governor fails to act, so the legislature is..

Oh the Liberals tears

 

[Serryah]

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent out 1,823,148 absentee or mail-in ballots. They received back 1.4 million approximately. However, in the count for president, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for the 700,000 difference between the ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count.

It was fraud out and out.. The Electoral College sees that and can give the 20 points to Trump..

No, YOU cry harder.. The Governor fails to act, so the legislature is..

Oh the Liberals tears

First, not a Liberal.

Second, where are you getting this theory from that you're suggesting? I'd love to read the article.

 

[B00Mer]

First, not a Liberal.

Second, where are you getting this theory from that you're suggesting? I'd love to read the article.

Rudy Giuliani addresses voter fraud this election with PA Senate Republicans

As republicans across the country continue to speak out about claims of fraud during the presidential election, Pennsylvania republican leaders held a public hearing today to discuss issues with this year’s election. “This election was lost by the democrats. They cheated; it was a fraudulent...

wjactv.com

Good Night sweetie

 

[Mockingbird]

First, not a Liberal.

Second, where are you getting this theory from that you're suggesting? I'd love to read the article.

I'll tell ya one source where this theory comes from, it's from this guy, Penn. State Senator Doug Mastriano. He's the guy that led the "hearings" at some hotel in Gettysburg the other day where nut job Rudy Giuliani spoke, as did Trump via Jenna (I wish I was Kellyanne Conway) Ellis, who held a cell phone that Trump was on up to a mic. so he could address the room, yeah they went high tech lol. My guess is that Four Seasons Total Landscaping was already booked. At any rate, I watched some of the "hearing" while it was on and this Senator opening the gig quoted a bunch of bible crap one point and went all fan-boy when Rudy walked into the room, it was disturbing. The guy is gaga for Trump and is doing his best Trump impersonation by spreading garbage facts which have been dismissed as false.

 

[Mockingbird]

Here's a clearer picture of the mail in ballots requested in Pennsylvania and how many were in fact returned:

One of the many pieces of misinformation repeated by President Donald Trump and his legal team, in an effort to dispute the results of Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, was the claim that the number of mail-in votes recorded in Pennsylvania greatly exceeded the number of mail-in ballots requested:

Pennsylvania reports having mailed out 1,823,148 ballots, of which 1,462,302 were returned. Yet total mail-in voters number 2,589,242? From where did the extra 1,126,940 votes come?

This claim was egregiously wrong, however.

The 1.8 million figure represents the number of mail-in ballots that Pennsylvania reported had been requested by persons registered as Democrats as of the voter registration deadline of Oct. 19. That figure did not include the hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots that were also requested by persons registered as Republicans (or persons registered with third parties affiliations or with no party affiliation) as of that date:

The deadline for requesting mail-in ballots was several days later (Oct. 27), and by then
over 3 million mail-in ballots were requested, of which over 2.6 million were ultimately returned by the specified deadline for ballot counting:

The numbers reiterated by Trump and his supporters in an attempt to prove election fraud in Pennsylvania bore no relationship to the total of mail-in votes recorded in that state and were not proof of any type of malfeasance or major error in vote-counting.

Did Pennsylvania Record Many More Mail-In Votes than Ballots Requested?

A repeated election fraud claim by Trump about the number of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania bears no relationship to reality.

www.snopes.com

 

[Mockingbird]

All this wishful thinking that Trump still somehow won this election is just that, wishful thinking. Almost all cases that have been brought to the courts by his lawyers have been summarily laughed at and thrown out. But let's just say for sake of argument that Trump, by some Q-anon baby blood drinking pedophile ring out of a basement shape shifting lizard people crazy conspiracy theory world, manages by some miracle to overturn Pennsylvania, he's still the loser. Do the math.

 

[B00Mer]

WOW!! Mockingbird, 3 posts in a row.. you must be in a panic like CBC and CNN to spread FakeNews and try and discredit the ideas of fraud in PA.

Looks like Trump will get the Electoral Votes out of PA. Remember, in the USA the people vote, but the Electoral College makes the final decision, and if they smell fraud.. they can vote Trump in as President regardless of the popular vote.

 

[Mockingbird]

WOW!! Mockingbird, 3 posts in a row.. you must be in a panic like CBC and CNN to spread FakeNews and try and discredit the ideas of fraud in PA.

Looks like Trump will get the Electoral Votes out of PA. Remember, in the USA the people vote, but the Electoral College makes the final decision, and if they smell fraud.. they can vote Trump in as President regardless of the popular vote.

In a panic to spread fake news? Okay, if you say soo Boomer. Tell me, did you pass basic math in school? Lets start there.

 

[Mockingbird]

Perhaps a little clarity is needed:

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say

​

State legislatures cannot substitute their judgment for the will of the people by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

The National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group of more than 50 experts dedicated to ensuring a free and fair 2020 election, released a briefing to dispel this notion — which has been floated by some backers of President Donald Trump in the midst of his projected loss to President-elect Joe Biden.


“GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” conservative radio host Mark Levin tweeted on Nov. 5, adding that Republican state legislatures have “the final say over the choosing of electors.” The post was flagged by Twitter as being disputed.

Still, Levin’s post was reportedly retweeted by the president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr. And during an appearance on FOX News, Sen. Lindsey Graham declined to dismiss a suggestion that Pennsylvania election results should be thrown out over unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.


FOX News and the Associated Press projected Biden as the winner of the key battleground state, and overall, the former vice president was also on track to win the national popular vote by more than 4 million.

“Everything should be on the table,” Graham, R-S.C., said.


The idea of state legislatures overriding the popular vote in favor of Trump was also raised in September, when Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators had reportedly discussed this idea — one with the Trump campaign.

Pennsylvania Republicans soon scoffed at the story, including Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman — who was quoted in The Atlantic piece.

“I have had ZERO contact with the Trump campaign or others about changing Pennsylvania’s long-standing tradition of appointing electors consistent with the popular vote,” Corman said in a statement Sept. 25 that remains pinned to the top of his Twitter feed.

What does the Constitution say?

The U.S. president is not chosen directly by voters, but rather, the voters choose presidential electors from each state. And the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College cast the official votes for president.

The Constitution delegates to state legislatures the power to choose the “manner” of appointing these electors. For more than 100 years, every one of the 50 states has chosen presidential electors based on the winner of the popular vote.

The Constitution also delegates to Congress the choice of when presidential electors must be appointed — which Congress has designated as “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November” — also known to Americans as Election Day.

“Proponents of the legislative-appointment theory read too much into the first constitutional provision and forget about the second,” wrote Adav Noti of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on voting rights, campaign finance, anti-gerrymandering work and government ethics.

Noti points out that although every state has chosen its electors by popular vote for more than a century, most constitutional experts agree that, under the state legislatures’ authority to choose the “manner” of appointing electors, a legislature could theoretically decide before Election Day to cancel the popular vote for presidential electors and instead appoint them directly.

But, under the timing provision in the Constitution, the absolute last day a state legislature could have decided to appoint the state’s presidential electors for this presidential election was Election Day — Nov. 3, 2020.

“Once that date passed, the determinative popular votes had all been cast, and therefore the legislature’s authority to change the state’s manner of appointing electors in 2020 passed as well,” Noti wrote in a piece published on Just Security, which focuses on U.S. national security law and policy.

In other words, a state’s legislature could not retroactively change the current laws to override popular vote.

A limited exception for emergencies

There is a single, narrow exception to federal law that provides if a state “has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law,” the state’s electors may be appointed on a later date “in such a manner as the legislature of such state may direct.”

This has never occurred in American history, and Congress has never expressly defined what would constitute an election failure. Some have suggested perhaps a natural disaster on Election Day rendering parts of a state uninhabitable, but delays in counting ballots or resolving election disputes do not meet that standard.

“It is clear from the structure of 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, that delays in a state’s completion of its vote tally or in resolving related disputes do not amount to a ‘failure to make a choice,’” the National Task Force on Election Crises wrote in its briefing.

There has been no indication of widespread improperly counted or illegally cast votes that would shift the outcome of the 2020 election, as Trump has falsely claimed. Election officials from both political parties have publicly stated the election went well, though there have been minor issues that are typical in elections — such as voting machines breaking and ballots that were miscast and lost.

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election actually hit a 50-year high, topping the record set by the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama, with votes still being counted.

Further reasons why experts say the scenario isn’t legal is that the Electoral College rules (3 U.S. Code § 5) address a situation in which a state sends two sets of votes. The rules for counting electoral votes give “conclusive” effect to the votes cast by the electors chosen on Election Day, “and require that those votes be counted to the exclusion of any others,” Noti wrote.

RELATED: Faithless electors: Could they impact 2020 election results?

The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously this year that a state may require presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote result in the Electoral College.

A state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion. "That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Kagan wrote.

“No one would try to do such a thing”

Noti said this “legislative-appointment theory” is a question that has “been floating around the academic world, but it’s never come up in real life.”

“I think the almost universal expectation is that no one would try to do such a thing. And even if they did, it would fail under a number of different legal and constitutional provisions,” Noti said.

Noti, who serves as the Campaign Legal Center’s senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff, also noted the 2020 presidential election results with Biden claiming 290 electoral votes to Trump’s 214.

“Another reason, just as a practical matter, is that it doesn't matter anymore. The margin is such that even if Pennsylvania and Michigan did that, it wouldn't change the results,” Noti said.

“Why try to do something illegal and deeply undemocratic if it’s not going to have the end result?” he added.

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say

State legislatures cannot override the popular vote by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

www.fox5atlanta.com

 

[B00Mer]

Perhaps a little clarity is needed:

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say​

​

​

State legislatures cannot substitute their judgment for the will of the people by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

The National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group of more than 50 experts dedicated to ensuring a free and fair 2020 election, released a briefing to dispel this notion — which has been floated by some backers of President Donald Trump in the midst of his projected loss to President-elect Joe Biden.


“GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” conservative radio host Mark Levin tweeted on Nov. 5, adding that Republican state legislatures have “the final say over the choosing of electors.” The post was flagged by Twitter as being disputed.

Still, Levin’s post was reportedly retweeted by the president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr. And during an appearance on FOX News, Sen. Lindsey Graham declined to dismiss a suggestion that Pennsylvania election results should be thrown out over unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.


FOX News and the Associated Press projected Biden as the winner of the key battleground state, and overall, the former vice president was also on track to win the national popular vote by more than 4 million.

“Everything should be on the table,” Graham, R-S.C., said.


The idea of state legislatures overriding the popular vote in favor of Trump was also raised in September, when Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators had reportedly discussed this idea — one with the Trump campaign.

Pennsylvania Republicans soon scoffed at the story, including Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman — who was quoted in The Atlantic piece.

“I have had ZERO contact with the Trump campaign or others about changing Pennsylvania’s long-standing tradition of appointing electors consistent with the popular vote,” Corman said in a statement Sept. 25 that remains pinned to the top of his Twitter feed.

What does the Constitution say?

The U.S. president is not chosen directly by voters, but rather, the voters choose presidential electors from each state. And the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College cast the official votes for president.

The Constitution delegates to state legislatures the power to choose the “manner” of appointing these electors. For more than 100 years, every one of the 50 states has chosen presidential electors based on the winner of the popular vote.

The Constitution also delegates to Congress the choice of when presidential electors must be appointed — which Congress has designated as “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November” — also known to Americans as Election Day.

“Proponents of the legislative-appointment theory read too much into the first constitutional provision and forget about the second,” wrote Adav Noti of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on voting rights, campaign finance, anti-gerrymandering work and government ethics.

Noti points out that although every state has chosen its electors by popular vote for more than a century, most constitutional experts agree that, under the state legislatures’ authority to choose the “manner” of appointing electors, a legislature could theoretically decide before Election Day to cancel the popular vote for presidential electors and instead appoint them directly.

But, under the timing provision in the Constitution, the absolute last day a state legislature could have decided to appoint the state’s presidential electors for this presidential election was Election Day — Nov. 3, 2020.

“Once that date passed, the determinative popular votes had all been cast, and therefore the legislature’s authority to change the state’s manner of appointing electors in 2020 passed as well,” Noti wrote in a piece published on Just Security, which focuses on U.S. national security law and policy.

In other words, a state’s legislature could not retroactively change the current laws to override popular vote.

A limited exception for emergencies

There is a single, narrow exception to federal law that provides if a state “has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law,” the state’s electors may be appointed on a later date “in such a manner as the legislature of such state may direct.”

This has never occurred in American history, and Congress has never expressly defined what would constitute an election failure. Some have suggested perhaps a natural disaster on Election Day rendering parts of a state uninhabitable, but delays in counting ballots or resolving election disputes do not meet that standard.

“It is clear from the structure of 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, that delays in a state’s completion of its vote tally or in resolving related disputes do not amount to a ‘failure to make a choice,’” the National Task Force on Election Crises wrote in its briefing.

There has been no indication of widespread improperly counted or illegally cast votes that would shift the outcome of the 2020 election, as Trump has falsely claimed. Election officials from both political parties have publicly stated the election went well, though there have been minor issues that are typical in elections — such as voting machines breaking and ballots that were miscast and lost.

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election actually hit a 50-year high, topping the record set by the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama, with votes still being counted.

Further reasons why experts say the scenario isn’t legal is that the Electoral College rules (3 U.S. Code § 5) address a situation in which a state sends two sets of votes. The rules for counting electoral votes give “conclusive” effect to the votes cast by the electors chosen on Election Day, “and require that those votes be counted to the exclusion of any others,” Noti wrote.

RELATED: Faithless electors: Could they impact 2020 election results?

The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously this year that a state may require presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote result in the Electoral College.

A state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion. "That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Kagan wrote.

“No one would try to do such a thing”

Noti said this “legislative-appointment theory” is a question that has “been floating around the academic world, but it’s never come up in real life.”

“I think the almost universal expectation is that no one would try to do such a thing. And even if they did, it would fail under a number of different legal and constitutional provisions,” Noti said.

Noti, who serves as the Campaign Legal Center’s senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff, also noted the 2020 presidential election results with Biden claiming 290 electoral votes to Trump’s 214.

“Another reason, just as a practical matter, is that it doesn't matter anymore. The margin is such that even if Pennsylvania and Michigan did that, it wouldn't change the results,” Noti said.

“Why try to do something illegal and deeply undemocratic if it’s not going to have the end result?” he added.

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say

State legislatures cannot override the popular vote by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

www.fox5atlanta.com

We shall see..

Trump 2020

 

[Serryah]

Rudy Giuliani addresses voter fraud this election with PA Senate Republicans

As republicans across the country continue to speak out about claims of fraud during the presidential election, Pennsylvania republican leaders held a public hearing today to discuss issues with this year’s election. “This election was lost by the democrats. They cheated; it was a fraudulent...

wjactv.com

Good Night sweetie

You're posting... a mock whatever the hell this was, that was held by Rudi and Republicans with DT calling in to keep parroting his lies... as proof?

Really?

>.< FFS Boom, this is sad even for you. Post something legit, not this mess and farce of a whatever this was.

 

[Serryah]

I'll tell ya one source where this theory comes from, it's from this guy, Penn. State Senator Doug Mastriano. He's the guy that led the "hearings" at some hotel in Gettysburg the other day where nut job Rudy Giuliani spoke, as did Trump via Jenna (I wish I was Kellyanne Conway) Ellis, who held a cell phone that Trump was on up to a mic. so he could address the room, yeah they went high tech lol. My guess is that Four Seasons Total Landscaping was already booked. At any rate, I watched some of the "hearing" while it was on and this Senator opening the gig quoted a bunch of bible crap one point and went all fan-boy when Rudy walked into the room, it was disturbing. The guy is gaga for Trump and is doing his best Trump impersonation by spreading garbage facts which have been dismissed as false.

The worst part about all of this, is that the continued repeating of Trump's lies is convincing people that maybe there was some legit fraud intentionally done.

 

[B00Mer]

The worst part about all of this, is that the continued repeating of Trump's lies is convincing people that maybe there was some legit fraud intentionally done.

Oh come anyone with half a brain can see this election was rigged..

Not My President

 

[taxslave]

Perhaps a little clarity is needed:

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say​

​

​

State legislatures cannot substitute their judgment for the will of the people by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

The National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group of more than 50 experts dedicated to ensuring a free and fair 2020 election, released a briefing to dispel this notion — which has been floated by some backers of President Donald Trump in the midst of his projected loss to President-elect Joe Biden.


“GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” conservative radio host Mark Levin tweeted on Nov. 5, adding that Republican state legislatures have “the final say over the choosing of electors.” The post was flagged by Twitter as being disputed.

Still, Levin’s post was reportedly retweeted by the president’s son, Donald Trump, Jr. And during an appearance on FOX News, Sen. Lindsey Graham declined to dismiss a suggestion that Pennsylvania election results should be thrown out over unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.


FOX News and the Associated Press projected Biden as the winner of the key battleground state, and overall, the former vice president was also on track to win the national popular vote by more than 4 million.

“Everything should be on the table,” Graham, R-S.C., said.


The idea of state legislatures overriding the popular vote in favor of Trump was also raised in September, when Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators had reportedly discussed this idea — one with the Trump campaign.

Pennsylvania Republicans soon scoffed at the story, including Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman — who was quoted in The Atlantic piece.

“I have had ZERO contact with the Trump campaign or others about changing Pennsylvania’s long-standing tradition of appointing electors consistent with the popular vote,” Corman said in a statement Sept. 25 that remains pinned to the top of his Twitter feed.

What does the Constitution say?

The U.S. president is not chosen directly by voters, but rather, the voters choose presidential electors from each state. And the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College cast the official votes for president.

The Constitution delegates to state legislatures the power to choose the “manner” of appointing these electors. For more than 100 years, every one of the 50 states has chosen presidential electors based on the winner of the popular vote.

The Constitution also delegates to Congress the choice of when presidential electors must be appointed — which Congress has designated as “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November” — also known to Americans as Election Day.

“Proponents of the legislative-appointment theory read too much into the first constitutional provision and forget about the second,” wrote Adav Noti of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on voting rights, campaign finance, anti-gerrymandering work and government ethics.

Noti points out that although every state has chosen its electors by popular vote for more than a century, most constitutional experts agree that, under the state legislatures’ authority to choose the “manner” of appointing electors, a legislature could theoretically decide before Election Day to cancel the popular vote for presidential electors and instead appoint them directly.

But, under the timing provision in the Constitution, the absolute last day a state legislature could have decided to appoint the state’s presidential electors for this presidential election was Election Day — Nov. 3, 2020.

“Once that date passed, the determinative popular votes had all been cast, and therefore the legislature’s authority to change the state’s manner of appointing electors in 2020 passed as well,” Noti wrote in a piece published on Just Security, which focuses on U.S. national security law and policy.

In other words, a state’s legislature could not retroactively change the current laws to override popular vote.

A limited exception for emergencies

There is a single, narrow exception to federal law that provides if a state “has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law,” the state’s electors may be appointed on a later date “in such a manner as the legislature of such state may direct.”

This has never occurred in American history, and Congress has never expressly defined what would constitute an election failure. Some have suggested perhaps a natural disaster on Election Day rendering parts of a state uninhabitable, but delays in counting ballots or resolving election disputes do not meet that standard.

“It is clear from the structure of 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, that delays in a state’s completion of its vote tally or in resolving related disputes do not amount to a ‘failure to make a choice,’” the National Task Force on Election Crises wrote in its briefing.

There has been no indication of widespread improperly counted or illegally cast votes that would shift the outcome of the 2020 election, as Trump has falsely claimed. Election officials from both political parties have publicly stated the election went well, though there have been minor issues that are typical in elections — such as voting machines breaking and ballots that were miscast and lost.

Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election actually hit a 50-year high, topping the record set by the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama, with votes still being counted.

Further reasons why experts say the scenario isn’t legal is that the Electoral College rules (3 U.S. Code § 5) address a situation in which a state sends two sets of votes. The rules for counting electoral votes give “conclusive” effect to the votes cast by the electors chosen on Election Day, “and require that those votes be counted to the exclusion of any others,” Noti wrote.

RELATED: Faithless electors: Could they impact 2020 election results?

The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously this year that a state may require presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote result in the Electoral College.

A state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion. "That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Kagan wrote.

“No one would try to do such a thing”

Noti said this “legislative-appointment theory” is a question that has “been floating around the academic world, but it’s never come up in real life.”

“I think the almost universal expectation is that no one would try to do such a thing. And even if they did, it would fail under a number of different legal and constitutional provisions,” Noti said.

Noti, who serves as the Campaign Legal Center’s senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff, also noted the 2020 presidential election results with Biden claiming 290 electoral votes to Trump’s 214.

“Another reason, just as a practical matter, is that it doesn't matter anymore. The margin is such that even if Pennsylvania and Michigan did that, it wouldn't change the results,” Noti said.

“Why try to do something illegal and deeply undemocratic if it’s not going to have the end result?” he added.

State legislatures cannot override popular vote after Election Day, legal experts say

State legislatures cannot override the popular vote by directly appointing their preferred slate of presidential electors after Election Day, legal experts say.

www.fox5atlanta.com

You sure are wound up over a foreign election that you have no voice in. Or are you one of the many illegal voters?

 

[taxslave]

The worst part about all of this, is that the continued repeating of Trump's lies is convincing people that maybe there was some legit fraud intentionally done.

Please explain how legit fraud is different from illegit fraud. Is the fraud committed by the Democrats legit fraud and the fraud committed by Republicans illegit fraud?

 

[petros]

She'll never be a on a jury.

 

[B00Mer]

She'll never be a on a jury.

If she is, I don't want to be the accused..

 

[DaSleeper]

As I watched on TV on the day of the election, why the boarded up windows, the lack of oversight ?

Can any of the pro Biden here in this forum, give me a valid reason?