“We Don’t Have to Live with a Fraudulent Election” – Legal Scholar John Eastman Says State Legislature Has Authority to Replace Electors due to Fraudulent ResultsVIDEO

GATEWAY PUNDIT ^ | 7/19/2021 | Jim Hoft

[Alberta's Child]

You’ve been a delusional fixture on this subject for months. “Watch and learn as the reverse unfolds” sounds like the nonsense some people were peddling on FR back in 2017 when they fabricated this grand scheme where Robert Mueller and James Comey were secretly working on Trump’s behalf.

[JohnnyP]

Who was the whiny liberal that used to debate him on Hugh Hewitt’s old show here in LA?

It just came to me. Erwin Chemerinsky I think?

[stanne]

I stopped tuning in to Hewitt years ago.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

At the barest minimum, you'd need the Supreme Court to endorse such a move, and that's just not going to happen. A state reversing/decertifying electors in between the time they are certified and the Electoral College vote would be a different question. But once the EC is voted, it seems no different than would a member of Congress deciding a month after a bill passed that he should have voted differently, and expecting that to repeal the law after it was already signed.

The Electors have voted, and one state deciding after the fact that it changed it's mind isn't going to change that.

[JohnnyP]

I listened to him for a while after he moved to DC. I haven’t listened since before the election.

I wonder if he’s saying it was stolen. He wrote a book a few years ago called “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”.

[stanne]

Hewitt is way too unpredictable at best

Waste of time

[Bellagio]

You obviously can't read. No, you didn't get a word straight about what I said, which I referred to the appointment of electors... NOT WHEN THEY CAST THEIR VOTES!

I wrote "No... that refers to a uniform protocol, a run-up time limit. It does not mean you have a single set day to 'choose' electors. It means there would be a cut-off day in which you must have completed the appointment/validation and resolved any challenges to delegate appointments by legal remedy of all electors that qualify to be an official delegate that has been given authorization to cast a vote in their respective state capitals that will be the same day for all states."

You are deflecting from your original argument that was, and I quote...

You said "... Has this guy even read the U.S. Constitution? It doesn’t say a whole lot about presidential elections, but it is absolutely clear and equivocal that all presidential electors must be chosen on the same day."

WRONG! and you have yet to admit your error.

I responded in conclusion "... there is no constitutional same-day choosing and you have not shown me that it is imposed by the constitution... it's not."

Now you are just trying to be smart, deliberately change the meaning of what I wrote, conflating appointment of delegates to the day of uniformity in casting their votes. You do this in order to end up on top with some cut/paste drivel you spent looking up the past 24 hrs in a desperate attempt to deflect away from your misunderstanding of the appointment powers of EC delegates by state legislatures... A pathetic attempt not to admit your understanding and assertions were... WRONG!.

You then add to your current reply...

You write "... However, this only works if a separate slate of electors has convened on the same day as the Electoral College vote and formally cast their votes for another candidate.

WRONG! Formality is irrelevant. Delegate legitimacy is the only thing that matters here. You think this is a game?... if you don't catch the fraud in 6 days it's too late? Just because a vote was cast doesn't mean it is irrevocable/immovable and must stand! Then why do audits exists, recounts and challenges allowed?... to make a costly show of futility, a farce that cannot change an outcome? National elections are no different then local ones... whether they are votes tallied from EC delegates or your local HOA! Fraud is Fraud! It is shown to have altered the outcome of an election... then the election is invalid, the outcome illegitimate, and the winners are usurpers.

You also write "... Retracting electors in the 2020 election at this point is like reversing an umpire’s bad decision in the 1978 World Series.

Also WRONG!

Knowing to have fraudulently certified a popular vote by the SOS, and followed up by the Governor signing a "Certificate of Ascertainment" that officially accepts/declares the SOS final 'fraudulent' vote certification as accepted and then pursuant to the SOS fraudulent certification... the governor knowingly validates the identifies of the EC delegates( that are now illegitimate and imposters), recognizing them as being the official de-facto legislature appointments made by the governor on behalf of the state legislature. No, it is NOTHING like reversing an umpires BAD decision... it's far worse, TREASON worse! Elected officials conspired to commit fraud, they lied, they altered documents and they certified manufactured numbers in order to steal an election.

No, it is you who are nuts and still misunderstand the EC process, the powers of the state legislatures and their powers of remedy when FRAUD is committed.

[I_be_tc]

Wow! Very good analysis. Thanks

[Alberta's Child]

I’ll ask two variations of one dumb question before I address the rest of your post:

1. If the Constitution doesn’t require the states to all appoint their presidential electors on the same day, then why do the states all appoint their presidential electors on the same day?

2. If the Constitution doesn’t require the states to all appoint their presidential electors on the same day, then why did the Trump electors in the states where the Trump campaign was trying to challenge the election results convene on that same day to formally announce that they were casting their electoral votes for Trump?

[The Pack Knight]

But once the EC is voted, it seems no different than would a member of Congress deciding a month after a bill passed that he should have voted differently, and expecting that to repeal the law after it was already signed.

I think a better analogy might be where, after the bill passed, that member of Congress's election was invalidated for some reason. I think in that case, any Supreme Court would apply the de facto officer doctrine and hold that the law is valid, as other courts have done in similar challenges to laws by state legislatures. Any other result would be chaos. It would do the same with the vote of an elector if it was determined, after the fact, that the elector's appointment was invalid.

[DoodleDawg]

1. If the Constitution doesn’t require the states to all appoint their presidential electors on the same day, then why do the states all appoint their presidential electors on the same day?

Because all states have chosen to allow the electors to be appointed, so to speak, by the voters and the day for the election is uniform throughout the country. If a state decided to have the electors appointed by the legislature, as South Carolina did up until 1860 for example, then the legislature could appoint the electors on any date they decided so long as the electors were chosen in time to cast their voted on the date specified for doing so.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

You’re right - that works better.

[Alberta's Child]

Because all states have chosen to allow the electors to be appointed, so to speak, by the voters and the day for the election is uniform throughout the country.

Election Day is one day, but there’s really no such thing as Election Day in many states. Between early voting and voting by mail, “Election Day” is now a weeks-long affair. It’s only the certification of electors in December that must take place on the same day across the entire nation.