Posted on 12/09/2020 8:01:22 AM PST by White Lives Matter
Greg Teufel, the attorney for Republican Sean Parnell in his Supreme Court case in Pennsylvania, joined National Report on Newsmax on Wednesday morning to discuss his client’s case and the upcoming Texas SCOTUS case.
Greg Teufel had this to say about the Texas Supreme Court case, “That’s an interesting case… In this case they’re not appealing any court below. They’re seeking to start their case in the Supreme Court. It’s still discretionary on the court’s part on whether it takes the case. It appears they (SCOTUS) have as you reported, they ordered a response. That doesn’t necessarily say they are taking the case. Certainly it’s an exciting development in a very interesting case.
Newsmax host Emma Rechenberg: It looks like the Trump legal team is running out of time. When is the deadline that you’re working on?
Greg Teufel: People I think put too much emphasis on the deadlines. Yes, if you want to prevent Biden from taking office certainly I would say by January 6th hopefully you’d have some kind of relief from a court in order to prevent Biden from being being declared a winner of the presidential election. I think once you get past that date you’re looking at a Biden inauguration. But it is the case that even after people take office in an election if they prove fraud down the road, even years into someone’s term, they can invalidate an election after the fact or order special elections to replace a person who was fraudulently elected.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The only constitutional deadline is January 20th.
That is the crux of the matter. What is the Remedy? They will not negate their results.
Yes, the deadlines are a problem. They fraudulently allowed the Kenyan to take office because it would have caused too much unrest to stop it, despite his being constitutionally unqualified.
“Proven” to who?
Tens of millions of Americans (and a lot of liberals too) are already convinced.
Actually the lawyer added...
If fraud is proven AFTER inauguration, the president can be removed in future as well. He/she is subject to removal anytime during the 4 year term.
But my opinion is that can happen only if impeachment takes place in congress. I don’t think SCOTUS can order removal?
The members of the Electoral College are people and they read news on the internet, are aware of the few Trump cases that have been unjustly tossed by partisan courts and the listen to talk radio. Each of them can clearly see that Biden cheated. With those facts, far more than 270 electors will vote for Trump for president on December 14th.
Here’s one example of an elected official being removed due to election fraud.
Peter Charles Granata (October 28, 1898 – September 29, 1973) was a U.S. Representative from Illinois.
Granata was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1930. Presented credentials as a Republican Member-elect to the Seventy-second Congress and served from March 3, 1931, to April 5, 1932, when he was succeeded by Stanley H. Kunz, who successfully contested the election.
A candidate can be removed from office even after being sworn in and serving.
Teufel? The Devil you say!
I don’t believe the entire election should be invalidated, but I do believe the SCOTUS should kick this mess back to the State Legislators in PA, GA, MI and MN to fix under the Texas lawsuit. Quick fast I might add.
“The members of the Electoral College are people and they read news on the internet, are aware of the few Trump cases that have been unjustly tossed by partisan courts and the listen to talk radio.”
The Democrat electors are hard core Democrats.
The USSC could nullify a fraudulent election after inauguration, but most certainly could not remove a sworn, sitting POTUS.
Because any of them, regardless of party, would just say no.
It would likely require an impeachment to remove.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.