Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan Legislatures To Hold Public Hearings On 2020 Election

FWIW

www.donaldjtrump.com...

Doesn't look like its related to Sidney Powells lawsuit

The first hearing, held by the Pennsylvania State Senate, will be conducted tomorrow, Wednesday, November 25th, in Gettysburg, PA, where each participating Senator will give a five-minute opening statement followed by testimony from witnesses who have filed affidavits attesting to 2020 election fraud. Tomorrow’s hearing will also feature a presentation from former New York City Mayor and Personal Attorney to President Trump, Rudy Giuliani.

a reply to: interupt42

So Sidney Powell and Lin Wood are filing a lawsuit in Georgia, and these ass clowns want to steal the show. What a coincidence.

Michigan had a public hearing planned anyway, not sure about the other 2 states. No official mention that I can find.

a reply to: interupt42

State Legislatures have the sole authority to select their representatives to the Electoral College,

This doesn't sound right.

In pa the two parties pick their electors and then the governor will certify those picks.

Public hearings, after all of these states' results have been certified.

Keep that money rolling in Don, keep hope alive!

a reply to: scraedtosleep

It's technically and legally correct. The Constitution places the onus for selecting electors on each state's legislature. Most states have passed laws that place that mechanism with the parties based on the state's popular vote results. That said, if a state legislature believes voter fraud occurred to such a degree as to swing the results of that popular vote, they are legally allowed to invalidate the results of that election and may choose electoral vote representatives to send to the Electoral College.

Doing so would create a Constitutional crisis and would almost certainly end with SCOTUS validating the "One State, One Vote" clause and each state's legislature would cast a vote for president.

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Public hearings, after all of these states' results have been certified.

Keep that money rolling in Don, keep hope alive!

That money is going to provide BIG evidence. Don’t stop believing!!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: scraedtosleep

It's technically and legally correct. The Constitution places the onus for selecting electors on each state's legislature. Most states have passed laws that place that mechanism with the parties based on the state's popular vote results. That said, if a state legislature believes voter fraud occurred to such a degree as to swing the results of that popular vote, they are legally allowed to invalidate the results of that election and may choose electoral vote representatives to send to the Electoral College.

Doing so would create a Constitutional crisis and would almost certainly end with SCOTUS validating the "One State, One Vote" clause and each state's legislature would cast a vote for president.

Aww man, they ain’t going to switch the vote. Giuliani is going to do that at the 11th hour. I can feel it in my bones.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Not sure if they are or aren't, but there is a legal, Constitutional mechanism for it to happen. That was my entire point.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: interupt42
"State Legislatures have the sole authority to select their representatives to the Electoral College,"

This doesn't sound right.

In pa the two parties pick their electors and then the governor will certify those picks.

Ummm... no, check the Constitution. You know, that piece of paper that so many refuse to even pretend to acknowledge any more, but that we now have 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices that actually care about what it says?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: scraedtosleep
It's technically and legally correct. The Constitution places the onus for selecting electors on each state's legislature. Most states have passed laws that place that mechanism with the parties based on the state's popular vote results. That said, if a state legislature believes voter fraud occurred to such a degree as to swing the results of that popular vote, they are legally allowed to invalidate the results of that election and may choose electoral vote representatives to send to the Electoral College.

Doing so would create a Constitutional crisis

I wish people would stop spouting this nonsensical statement. It would not create a 'Constitutional crisis', since the Constitution clearly outlines the process for what happens in the event there is ever a problem like this.

It is clear. It has happened in the past more than once. It is not a crisis, except in the minds of those with TDS.

and would almost certainly end with SCOTUS validating the "One State, One Vote" clause and each state's legislature would cast a vote for president.

That may happen if Sidney and Lin can prove their case about systemic electoral fraud based on compromised software running on compromised electronic voting machines.

But other than that, no, if a State Legislature decides their electoral vote process was compromised, they can of their own volition de-certify their electors chosen by the popular vote, and their Legislature can elect a new slate, and nothing in that process would create a crisis or cause for the Supreme Court to step in.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
except in the minds of those with TDS.

Wait, I have TDS now?
You might want to check yourself before you end up looking like a goddamn fool. A Constitutional crisis simply means the SCOTUS will have to blaze a trail and interpret the path forward, which is what would happen if we had states invalidate the election results due to perceived fraud.

Me... accused of having TDS! You gonna say Donald Trump is suffering from TDS for your next act? Maybe suggest that the Kaiser was a goddamn liberal socialist?

Boy, what a hoot.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: tanstaafl
except in the minds of those with TDS.

Wait, I have TDS now?

Sorry, that actually wasn't aimed at you, though it did appear that way. My bad...

A Constitutional crisis simply means the SCOTUS will have to blaze a trail and interpret the path forward, which is what would happen if we had states invalidate the election results due to perceived fraud.

This is why I responded - because that is totally incorrect. The Supreme Court would not do that for just one or two States, but, as I said, they might, if Sidney and Lin are able to prove massive, systemic fraud throughout all of the States.

Otherwise, only those States with huge questions would be invalidated, and it would fall to their State Legislatures, not to Congress.

Weird Double...

A large number of trump supporters will be inside and outside of these public hearings.

We will see if BLM and antifa show up.

They will be outnumbered 1,000 to 1.

A little more info on the three state hearings.

justthenews.com...

via Tuscon.com

However, neither House Speaker Rusty Bowers nor his fellow Republican, Senate President Karen Fann, has authorized such a hearing. And without their permission, any meeting of lawmakers is just people coming together with no real power.

lol

Real hard-hitting evidence coming at any second now.

a reply to: interupt42

www.detroitnews.com...

There were discussions about having Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, testify, state House Oversight Committee Chairman Matt Hall, R-Marshall, told The Detroit News. "We’ve just determined that logistically it’s not something we’re going to be able to do," said Hall, adding that the Trump campaign has been invited to submit written testimony.

a reply to: links234

Beat me by 6 min...

a reply to: scraedtosleep