12 thoughts on “The Pennsylvania Lawsuit”

  1. “Without flipping the state into his column, President Trump has no chance of reversing the apparent result of the election.”

    Posted from your link. According to a lawyer on the Sean Hannity show today (whose name escapes me unfortunately) there is another path to victory for Trump. SCOTUS could decide that the election results in Pennsylvania (especially) and Michigan and Wisconsin (likely) are hopelessly compromised. Therefore SCOTUS could rule that said election results be thrown out; no one gets them not Trump or Biden. Minus 20 electoral votes (Penn) and probably any one of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin than neither candidate would get to the magic no. of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the election into the House or Representatives; where republicans control 26 out of 50 (each state delegation only gets one vote in this instance). Rhode Island would have as many votes for this as California by my understanding of the process. Trump could therefore win by this scenario.

    1. If the election is horribly compromised, it was compromised by Democrats, and at that point I don’t think they can legitimately take office.

      1. “If the election is horribly compromised, it was compromised by Democrats, and at that point I don’t think they can legitimately take office.”

        There is no mechanism that I know of for re-doing the National Presidential election; therefore the scenario above I outlined seem reasonable for resolving POTUS election. For state/local elections even I believe for State Senator or Congressional Representative depending on your State’s constitution there may (or not) be situations where another election could be statewide ordered?

        1. For House races where the vote was compromised, there have been cases where the seat was declared vacant, and a special election held, just as if there had been a death, resignation, or expulsion. (I’m too lazy to look it up, but I believe there was one such in North Carolina this century.)

          If it looks obvious like there’s not going to be a majority for either, it would also be a good time for “unfaithful electors” to cast votes for either a compromise candidate, or for Harris, so there would could be three options for the House to choose from. That could liven things up even more.

      2. “Legitimately…”.
        That’s a word I haven’t heard being applied to Democrats for a long long time…..

    2. I wonder if Trump really cares. Maybe he’s just guessing he’ll uncover enough fraud so he can push for laws to clean up elections even if he loses. I wouldn’t put it past him to consider this a sort of win-win.

    3. Make sure you take into account that the next Congress, after 03 January, which will be doing the certifying of the Electoral College results. It’s that House which will be voting. Another reason why the Democratics losing seats, instead of gaining as they expected, is important.

  2. A Pennsylvania postal worker whose claims have been cited by top … potential evidence of widespread voting irregularities recanted to U.S. Postal Service … Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post …


    “Recanted” did he? Well that puts us in a different place; Oh wait maybe not:

    “Pennsylvanian postal worker who claims US vote was rigged denied he recanted allegations”


    The mainstream media just keeps on liar, liar, pants on fire! Wonder how long before youtube flags/deletes this?

    1. In the WaPo story it evens says he denied recanting but why spoil the headline everyone was sharing on Twitter?

  3. “Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Pennsylvania Lawsuit Is Strongest for Trump”

    “The lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump challenging the mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania is his “strongest” litigation he has filed against any state, legal expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.

    “The strongest lawsuit is the one in Pennsylvania involving the votes by mail that were submitted before the end of election day but weren’t received until after election day,” Dershowitz told Wednesday’s “American Agenda.”

    “There they have a very good chance of winning in the Supreme Court on the basis of Article II of the Constitution that clearly says that it’s the legislature, not the state courts, that decide voting rules,” Dershowitz said told host Bob Sellers. “And Pennsylvania used the [state] Supreme Court decision rather than the legislative decision. Dershowitz added, “That their best chance because it’s a wholesale constitutional challenge. The other challenges are largely state court challenges, because they’re based on retail allegations of corruption and those are not federal issues. You have to decide those in state court.”


Comments are closed.