They don’t have to prove fraud. They have to prove that they way they handled their election wasn’t lawful.

They aren’t asking to throw any votes out at all

Sure... Fix the unconstitutional behavior for next time. To expect the remedy to result in overturning the election, I would think they would have to prove harm that would justify it.

Then why throw the fraud and kitchen sink in? Scotus hates the kitchen sink

I think you misunderstand their claim the harm is inbuilt but expressed differently, its not required as a specific

For next time...that’s what everyone says. Next time we’ll fix it. Oh don’t worry, next time we’ll do it right.

If it's a constitutional issues Mellissa Carone doesnt need to sit down with the US supreme court cmon 🤣

The ask is to make the legislatures not rely on an unlawful election. There must be sanctions for not following the rules. One of those sanctions is your election not being certified and it falling back to the legislatures because the election is in doubt, not because you know the election would have gone the other way.

There is a Remedy in the US Constitution to address this issue for this mistake or Unconstitutional Behavior.

They did that for decades as the South came up with more and more ways to suppress black voters.

Southern heritage MAGA

Yeah... I don't see that happening.

The suit is asking the court to send the election to the State legislature. The Constitution is very clear that the power to choose electors rests with the State Legislators. The people being able to vote for president, isn’t even in the constitution. We used to not even have a vote for president.

Fine. That may be the case, but you need to stop saying "overturn the election", because that's not the argument nor asked for remedy

Even if SCOTUS does side with Texas on this...that does NOT mean the legislators have to send pro Trump electors.

The State Legislators don’t even have to send any electors

States put protections in their Constitution to stop state congress from changing electors after the fact

No, they do

That's why you can't get special sessions to butt out

Which are of importance when the ones about checking votes aren't lol

@jimmy two, you just advanced to level 2!

One side went to that extreme and now the other side is making every attempt to get rid of the safeguards and security aspects of our elections.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" Article II Section 1

Umm pretty sore they don’t actually. If they can’t agree on who to send, they can also choose to not send any.

Technically The State Legislature can Vote for Electors to vote for You. They can pick anyone they want.

sure* ugh I cant type today

Are the electors people or positions?

Actual People.

They are definitely people.

That's not what I said. State legislatures already set the rules. They were followed and electors granted. They may only change the rules when they are in session. States set it up so they couldnt do what they are trying to do steal an election.

Free people or people in a position with a specified role?

They are asking for extraordinary relief - to disenfranchise the will of the voters in 4 states on a technicality. That result would be punitive - and they would have to prove that the unlawful act was done with malicious intent and that the act did in fact result in voter fraud having taken place. At least, that is how I think it would go down.

My apologies, I replied to the incorrect comment.

If that is the manner that they prescribe ahead of election day or the manner that they prescribed actually failed to produce a winner.

They arent going to let states violate other states rights.

Free People. Historically they are People who have a relationship or reliance to a Political Party of the Candidate of the Popular Vote.

The counterfactual here does not matter. It's not an argument against decertification. You can't say it's even probably likely that had the executive branch not modified the rules of the election, that the results would have persisted. There's no way to prove that. What can be proven (or disproven) is that the executive branches did in fact modify the rules.

We both might need to read up a bit more on it. I’m not sure how to phrase this response to be honest because I don’t know the second scenario that they can do very well. My understanding is that of the legislators can’t agree on which electors to send (I believe they can also split the electors), that the State delegates would then choose??

Yeah, but they can't not send anybody. They must count toward the total appointed.

Yes, electors or state delegates must decide. I should have phrased that better

So what happens if they go rogue?

Congress having the power to do something doesnt mean they can just do whatever whenever 😅

Well... I think that the PA portion case is not going to go anywhere. Those issues were raised all the way to the US SC and were allowed to let stand. It would be ridiculous for them to now say that the PA election is null when they were in a position to do something about it ahead of time. As such, the fact that they allowed the PA case to stand before the election, there is precedent for allowing extraordinary temporary measures to accommodate the pandemic, which could be used to justify the other states' actions. I think remedy will be moot, because I don't think they will rule for TX, because they had a chance to do it before the election and didn't.

This is the argument. Nothing whatsoever to do with fraud. Throw out the F word in this case. It’s about whether or not those states violated the state or federal constitution. The remedy IF SCOTUS agrees with TX, is very fair. Nothing to do with throwing votes out, or forcing someone to vote for President Trump instead of Biden. They are asking to send the decision to the state legislators just like the constitution actually says.

@thebrodys, you just advanced to level 8!

Depends on the State Law. Some States have Laws that address "Unfaithful Electors". Some States Do Not. In 2016 we had four Unfaithful Electors.

You cant put the fraud in the case and say frauds nothing to do with it

It’s my understanding that the Kelly case isn’t dismissed, they denied the injunctive relief but not the case?

Then I think you need to respond to @busillis who's constantly said that act 77 was modified last minute illegally by the executive branch

Which means they were probably going to deal with it post-election.

There isnt a case without the injunctive relief but Jenna wanted to pretend there was as I understand it

Or answer the question in the Texas Case. If they do it makes Kelly's Case Moot.

I don’t know. I didn’t see Jenna, say that. I was hearing other commentators (ACLJ) talk about it today.

Didnt see that but if I see the folks winning the cases saying one thing and jenna disagreeing shes been usually wrong

The case mentions that many of the changes made made the elections less secure and more vulnerable to fraud (precisely because the primary ways in which you would find evidence of fraud, such as signature verification, have been removed) - but the case does not rely on any determination of fraud. To say it's about fraud is at best misleading and at worst dishonest.

Yeah I really don’t know. 🤷🏼‍♂️. I guess we will see. It’s a bit confusing to me.

The Kelly case isn't part of this... The issues raised in the TX case are the concerns about the changes that Boockvar made to Act 77, I believe. Those had gone all the way up to the US SC and they voted to let the PA SC ruling stand.

That was the 4-4 decision that Coney-Barret did not participate in.

Have people on the server for R&R really not seen their video on this? Because the R&R video on this last night was really good and laid out exactly what Texas is suing over.

Yeah, but didn't they make some orders in that decision that weren't followed by PA?

Which were specifically made so they could make a determination later if it came up after the election?

Yes, segregating ballots that came in after 1030 on November 3rd, iirc. That time may be wrong, though, but I'm pretty sure that's the date and what it was.

Yes we see the video but theres often more to the story.

They didn't rule that because that wasn't the question they were answering, tour right they didn't carry on to sort it out and give an answer but that's not the same.

Instead we got an unproven statement from some PA state official saying "it was less than 10,000 that came in after that time"

Like Texas being lawless wasteland of heathens propping up a lawsuit for Trumps benefit to avoid spending life in jail might be a part of the case 😂

Corrupt AGs matter

I'm arguing this stuff across like 5 different servers and a common theme in at least 3 of them is how full of mockery and insult the "no Fraud" and pro-Biden camp is. And the only reason it's not in one of those severs is that one is just a group of friends I know IRL.

It's a disturbingly common trend.

The Texas AG's Motivation is irrelevant. SCOTUS will Rule on the Law not his Motivation.

Now that theres actual evidence proving a conspiracy you guys seem rather hesitant to step off the kraken train and onboard the wtf are you doing Texas train

I would have to go back and check... I know that Alito had ordered that they segregate ballots received after 8PM on election day - an order that Boockvar had apparently given prior to that. Those segregated ballots reported totaled around 10k. I am not sure if they were ever added to the total. As far as we know, they complied with that order. I don't recall any other orders being given.

I think issue was taken with the fact that they left no proof of that figure and so didn't really comply with the intent (or even full letter? This part in perinthesis is conjecture on my part) of the order?

It can be argued that manufacturing public opinion is more important in winning Court cases than presenting facts and evidence.

You could say that about any election official on both sides of the political spectrum. At some point, people have to be taken at their word as their actions are governed by law with the potential of severe penalties. I understand the emotions involved, but accusing someone of committing a felony and defying the order of a SC Justice should be backed with something more than a casual aspersion because they are not telling you what you want to hear.

Are you claiming you have facts behind you? 😂

I know that people were following this carefully, so I will look to see if there were any stories that indicated that they had not, in fact, complied.

It sounded to me like they didn't fully deliver what the court asked for, that's what I know about it.

For example is it more effective for the DNC to give explanations for each of the statistical anomalies presented in Giulianis and Powell’s arguments, or is it more effective to utilize your assets in media to validate the election results?

And censor any counter-narrative.

But remember, the side that wants free and open discussion is behind the dictator, apparently, not the side that's accused of rigging elections and attempting to silence anyone who questions them.

It seems like if you worked for the DNC and you took the route of addressing the evidence, opening yourself up to risk, and at great cost, you should be fired and replaced with someone that will just win the election via your assets.

I can't, and nobody should forgive Youtube for their absolutely insane new policy.

Thank you for proving his point that mockery is employed by the left 😂

Theres more evidence Texas did fraudulent elections than the states they are accusing screwed up. Over and over again Trumps legal teams argument was we have all these wild claims you cant see the evidence wait until court and then they got to court and presented nothing. Sorry if that's not compelling 😂

Buckle up, Texas.

When Hillary screwed up and the evidence was there I said she should go to jail. Vice versa doesnt seem to ever be the case.

Kraken cases are available online. You have any affidavits or mathematical analyses alleging Texas election fraud?

The Texas AG is under FBI investigation for bribery and abuse of office and facing 100 years in prison for election rigging and other. He fired all his subordinates for whistleblowing on him.

😂 that’s your evidence? LOL

(Tactics of the left)

So if Texas is innocent and Dems are guilty why is Texas AG have a criminal case against him and not Georgia or pa or michigan

I believe that these statistical anomalies were adjudicated in the Nevada case. The Trump Campaign's chosen data expert was allowed access to data and provided a report to their findings. These finding were presented as part of a deposition and opposing counsel was allowed to ask questions. Opposing counsel ended up being able to assert that under cross examination the Trump expert supported the case that no fraud was committed. They were also able to successfully argue that the methodology originally used by Trump's expert was flawed. I am paraphrasing, but that is the gist of what happened.

Oh but thats fine Trump will just pass out pardons and you can pretend nothing is wrong

Not according to the suit.

That's why I wish that some of these cases had been allowed to go forward. When under scrutiny, the assertions made did not hold up. I think it would have been good for the American people to have seen them play out.

I have direct evidence from an interdimensional alien kraken.

Some of them did. It changed nothing. The foundation was never honesty.

https://twitter.com/sidneypowell1/status/1337086968912617472?s=12

They can claim anything... Did they provide any proof that this was the case? Maybe USPS records that showed the delivery of hundreds of thousands of late ballot?

Did Boockvar?