My shortest possible summary of “where we are now”:
The Texas suit “avoids fraud”... only by focusing on the error generated in the product of it, rather than its origin. Those states that failed to follow the law in conducting elections don’t have to be convicted of a conspiracy to defraud... or sedition or treason... they only have to not be allowed to succeed. (For now... )
The TX case is well crafted and should succeed. Roughly a snowballs chance in hell the court won’t take the case. Should know more this afternoon... or tomorrow.
Then what ? Look beyond the case, assuming it succeeds fully, and the operative law is 3USC2... which says if the states botch an election, as they have, the legislatures choose the electors. And, 3USC2 obviates the “safe harbor” timing issues. If a state fails in that task... then that state has no vote... and what happens still depends on the vote of the other states, as held on 6 January... which is the next timing element required. Note, the law and its requirements in 3USC2 are not dependant on the SCOTUS decision in order to be made operative ? But, the court probably will direct “follow the law” in result of the case.
On or after January 6, if a candidate wins a majority of electors, after all the (many and substantive) relevant objections to electors are resolved as required... they win.
If there is still no majority at that point... then the House decides the President, the Senate the VP... and all kinds of crazy outcomes are made possible in result. (President Harris... and VP Trump ?)
So, what matters, now ? Sidney Powell’s suits... and the suit in PA... have NOT ended. PA was denied injunctive relief, only... which is obviated by the TX suit asking the same thing... and their case remains active.
The issue of fraud... isn’t relevant now in the TX ask in their SCOTUS briefs... but it could become relevant under original jurisdiction... if the court asks for more in terms of the facts in evidence ?
But, otherwise, the proofs of fraud will only matter in relation to the politics conducted in the process of state legislatures or the U.S. Congress determining its relevance in influencing their choices.
The media attempt to prevent discussion of fraud... seen in context of the relevance of the subject ?
They’re not letting you talk about it... but great progress has been made in unwinding the frauds that were practiced.
The most obvious is that the “failure to follow the law” in some states that is the subject of the TX objection at the SCOTUS... was not a random event... but a product of a conspiracy to “avoid following the law”.
The Powell effort focused on computers and machines... has also borne fruit (has fully cracked the algorithm that was used) and that connects dots with other issues... in a way that rises to a level that is sufficient to operate as legal proof...
If state courts or lower courts refuse to see it... the SCOTUS can exercise original jurisdiction and take a look...
And, of course, the legislatures (prior to January 6) and the Congress (on and after January 6) will be REQUIRED to investigate it and reach agreement without the interferences of the perpetrators “investigating themselves” in fake recounts, etc.
How those objections are written... will matter ?
And, of course, the election of Senators in Georgia will matter.
But, the only timing elements that matter: Jan 6 and Jan 20.
What I’d like to see...
Is SCOTUS granting TX their asks... in orders... without issuing any decision that ends the case... just leaving the case open to hear the evidence they might need to hear, only when the court’s grant of discovery is ripe... which likely will not occur until after the state legislatures and the Congress have completed their required investigations of the various aspects of the disputes engaged in the election of electors ?
I should note that my prior post contained:
“Note, the law and its requirements in 3USC2 are not dependent on the SCOTUS decision in order to be made operative ? But, the court probably will direct “follow the law” in result of the case.”
The court could, of course use that fact in not taking up the case... unless there are other issues in the briefs (or not) that require that they should.
It is possible that they could “grant the relief” requested while doing so by refusing to take the case.
But, if people were following the law, we wouldn’t be before the court asking those others be directed to follow it ?