Epic fail for the election deniers even though John Gomes Facebook is a great source for a trial. For one thing, even if there was an illegal drop, unless the ballots themselves were fraudulent they would all still count. The result would not be changed. Of course it turns out Republicans wouldn't need to change anything since there was nothing illegal by Democrats in this case.
Think how many times that liar trump and all magats referenced 2000 mules as proof to support their insane and anti-democracy attempt to overturn the election. Built completely on lies.
This has been a frequent line from MAGA. Giuliani, Sidney Powell, et al. All claimed to have mountains of evidence and presented nothing in court. Many who claim that the election was stolen even cite the absence of evidence as proof. They cite that because a lot of people think that the election was stolen that amounts to proof that it was.
Congressional members do take an oath to uphold the constitution, right? And not just the parts they like, right? We will have to see how the SCOTUS rules on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Their ruling might explicitly state that this is how Section 3 is enforced. If Congress follows what the SCOTUS says, MAGA will behave like grown ass adults and deal with it, right?
You mean there hasn't been proof of a vast conspiracy funded by Soros and Pedo Pizza Shops to hire vote stuffing ninjas (As reported by CNN!!!11) to bring Hillary back into power? Well sir, just because there isnt proof there is doesn't not mean there is disproof it doesn't not exist out there...SHEEPLE!
Not so clever attempt at creating a “well they were going to do too” narrative to spin. Anyone who has heard Steve Bannon say two words since 2020 has most likely heard the words 12th amendment. The entire reason Trump was indicted in the DC case was because he was conspiring to falsely create a contested election where the 12th amendment calls for the house to vote in the house to appoint a president. However the reason why Republicans love this idea as a way of overturning elections they don’t like is because the 12th amendment calls for one vote per state. Meaning South and North Dakota get the same amount of votes as California and New York. This is also a reason why Democrats even if they held a majority in the House would never do this because they would almost never hold a majority on a state by state basis. So your post here is pure propaganda to try and normalize this rare and REAL emergency lever that Congress could pull.
Their leader Trump tells them what to do. If he cries and rants and raves, they do too. If he spreads lies and propaganda they do too. If he says "Jump!" they ask "How high?" They followed his lead to incite and exploit Americans before, during, and after the last election. They pleaded the 5th over and over and over like good little puppets. They show no remorse, just like their sociopathic leader who is incapable of feeling remorse. No! They will never deal with anything that doesn't fit their sick and corrupt puppet master's agenda.
It's not an overlooked scenario. That very scenario was brought up by the CO lawyer, arguing that the USSC should rule on the merit of the case and not punt it to Congress (for Congress to decide if Trump is disqualified or not based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment). If the scenario were to happen—USSC punting to Congress, Trump winning, Congress then having to make a decision—it would likely end right back at the USSC again. This would create an extremely unhealthy constitutional crisis by the Court. The USSC should affirm or not affirm instead of punting it to Congress.
They're punting. The originalists have become consequentialists. Not saying that they're wrong, but the interpretive methodology has changed. Didn't help that the CO attorney was ass compared to Jonathan Mitchell. The best brief from an originalist standpoint is this one: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump v Anderson.pdf But again, there is no rule that you have to use one interpretive method over another, or when to dump precedent, or whatever. The court does what the court wants to do.
