Michigan Republican Warns of "Constitutional Crisis"

[SmarterthanYou]

A lawsuit cannot prevent a State from choosing their electors. I can force an election to decertify, but that State can still choose it's electors. If a State fails to do so, it abstains. No electors will come from that State.

If enough States will not choose their electors, there is no effective electoral college. Then the alternative method of choosing the President and Vice-President will be triggered. That is not a misinterpretation. We shall see if this will be required of this election cycle.

interesting angle. thank you

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RQAA

This is last time I'll repeat what I've already said in here.

"Next it will be contested, have a real recount of only the legal ballots. If just 1 vote is 'off', then the whole thing gets re-certified." (11-21-20)

Too bad you don't even have an inkling of how the process works. A contested election requires presenting evidence to a judge that would cause the election to be overturned if true. The evidence must be compelling and not just statements by affidavit of people that were upset by the result. I suggest you go read the judge's ruling in PA to see what will happen to your "contested" election.

In Michigan to contest the election, the petitioner has to name every voter that they are contesting along with their address and reason for the contest as to why they think the vote voted but was ineligible. A vague claim of fraud is not a valid reason to contest the election.

[Nordberg]

The meeting of the canvassers is on now. Well, they did just take a break. They are allowing witnesses and political people to make comments via computer.

[gfm7175]

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

https://apnews.com/article/judge-thr...43c3385c9ba86c

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You should hide your face after you claimed that Trump had only lost one case in Michigan. He clearly lost the case in Pennsylvania as well as evidenced by the article I posted.

If you would like to read the judge's ruling in PA where he effectively told the Trump lawyers that they were full of shit, you can read it here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

Are you calling the courts a liar for posting the ruling that clearly exists in spite of your denials?

From the ruling -
Plaintiffs in this matter are Donald J. Trump for President,

[gfm7175]

You should hide your face after you claimed that Trump had only lost one case in Michigan. He clearly lost the case in Pennsylvania as well as evidenced by the article I posted.

If you would like to read the judge's ruling in PA where he effectively told the Trump lawyers that they were full of shit, you can read it here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

Are you calling the courts a liar for posting the ruling that clearly exists in spite of your denials?

From the ruling -
Plaintiffs in this matter are Donald J. Trump for President,

The Trump team hasn't lost ANY of their cases in Michigan (they withdrew one of them because they received what they were seeking), nor have they lost their PA case... The cases are still making their way through the court system. They are still pending.

You are a complete moron for gobbling up fake news.

[archives]

The Trump team hasn't lost ANY of their cases in Michigan (they withdrew one of them because they received what they were seeking), nor have they lost their PA case... The cases are still making their way through the court system. They are still pending.

You are a complete moron for gobbling up fake news.

In Pennsylvania the Trump lawyers have to four o'clock today to present an argument to the Court of Appeals that justifies the Court of Appeals taking the case.

Now tell us, the case was thrown out in the lower Court by a conservative Judge who is a member of the Heritage who not only threw the case out but went out of his way to reprimand the Trump lawyers for even bringing such a week case before him. Now how do you think the think the Court of Appeals is going to look at the case

It is over in Pennsylvania, and probably by the end of today, in Michighan, meaning Trump is done

[ThatOwlWoman]

In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.

https://apnews.com/article/judge-thr...43c3385c9ba86c

From the link:

"U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”"

Yet good "Americans" like Sister Stench and her ilk would be perfectly happy with that -- as long as the disenfranchised citizens had not voted for #LOSER45.

[Into the Night]

interesting angle. thank you

Quite welcome. You are also correct. There are lot of people figuring that the only way out of this is the 12th amendment alternate. They are arguing a false dichotomy.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The Trump team hasn't lost ANY of their cases in Michigan (they withdrew one of them because they received what they were seeking), nor have they lost their PA case... The cases are still making their way through the court system. They are still pending.

You are a complete moron for gobbling up fake news.

You cannot appeal to a higher court unless a decision has been made by the lower court.
A plaintiff in a case would have no reason to appeal a case unless they lost it. Trump is the plaintiff in the case.

Because someone is appealing a case would under normal circumstances mean they lost the case in the lower court. An appeal may overturn their loss but filing an appeal doesn't mean they haven't lost the case. It just means they haven't exhausted their appeals.


I don't think I am the one that is a complete moron.

[Into the Night]

Too bad you don't even have an inkling of how the process works.

Inversion falllacy. You are describing yourself.

A contested election requires presenting evidence to a judge that would cause the election to be overturned if true.

No, it doesn't. All that is required is for a judge or jury to decertify the election. That is no overturning it. It is simply declaring the election void. It is up to the Michigan State legislature on where to go from there.

The evidence must be compelling and not just statements by affidavit of people that were upset by the result.

The evidence is compelling if no one can prove a witness is lying. You cannot just discard their sworn testimony. These witness are both Republicans and Democrats, dumbass.

I suggest you go read the judge's ruling in PA to see what will happen to your "contested" election.

The judge has not yet ruled in Trump's lawsuit against PA.

In Michigan to contest the election, the petitioner has to name every voter that they are contesting along with their address and reason for the contest as to why they think the vote voted but was ineligible. A vague claim of fraud is not a valid reason to contest the election.

Nope. Not required. Argument by repetition fallacy. The fraud described by these witnesses is not vague.

[Into the Night]

The meeting of the canvassers is on now. Well, they did just take a break. They are allowing witnesses and political people to make comments via computer.

Irrelevant.

[PostmodernProphet]

And if it isn't, it means you were lying about Democrats cheating. See how that works?

no......it could also mean you got away with it......

[floridafan]

no......it could also mean you got away with it......

You got proof of cheating, big mouth? Hire an attorney and go to court. I doubt a schmuch like you would even attempt to lie to a judge. Everyone had their proof until they entered a courtroom and finally had to tell the truth. No evidence no proof of anything.

[Into the Night]

You should hide your face after you claimed that Trump had only lost one case in Michigan.

Trump has not lost any case in Michigan.

He clearly lost the case in Pennsylvania as well as evidenced by the article I posted.

He didn't lose that one either. It's going to appeal at the supreme court. The 3rd district court cannot stop that.

If you would like to read the judge's ruling in PA where he effectively told the Trump lawyers that they were full of shit, you can read it here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

Obvious bias. This is going to appeal.

Are you calling the courts a liar for posting the ruling that clearly exists in spite of your denials?

No. Trump is going to appeal.