“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

[Lurkinanloomin]

I know you’re thrilled that Grahamnesty, Cornyn and Tills are working to give the Democrats a permanent majority with amnesty.

[FreeReign]

John Eastman: We also have a backdrop of common law. When you have a fraud, the actions taken present to the fraud are unraveled after the discovery of the fraud.

UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON. | Supreme Court: Fraud vitiates everything.

[Organic Panic]

MUST DESTROY THE BAD ORANGEMAN.

[P-Marlowe]

Any state that comes out months after the fact and claims that its electoral votes were cast fraudulently should immediately have its statehood revoked and revert to territorial status for a minimum of 25 years.

And you think John Eastman knows nothing about the constitution?

You might want to check his credentials. Then post yours.

[fwdude]

To all the naysayers out there, I say that something has never been done before until it IS done. Precedent is built by novelty.

[stanne]

Hack?

Stop

[rdcbn1]

John Eastman is one of the most respected and knowledgeable constitutional scholars in America.

He may be the top guy in the country

[little jeremiah]

This morning will roaming around I saw a video (didn’t watch but spocked it) of Giuliani saying that Fann is wrong and the AZ legislature does have the power to remove electors. Fann must have been threatened.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think that is the key point.

We are in uncharted waters here and no one can really say “it can’t be done”. No one knows what can be done in a situation like this, so “what can be done” will simply be whatever they decide to do.

Individual states need to take bold action and take a firm stand to try and force the issue. If the states (AZ, GA, etc.) simply say “Biden isn’t president” there will be a crisis and it will be resolved one way or another. This should not be taken as one of those instances where “You have no standing.Shut up”. We will get what we deserve, so it’s up to the States and the People. “Precedent” has nothing to do with it, because this thing is new.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Fann suggested that the Arizona Senate does not have the authority to replace the electors in the state of Arizona.

What are the constitutional implications of a State like Arizona uncertifying a Presidential election that they previously certified almost a year after the fact? Is it lawful to do that?

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

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.

Does that include certifying under the guise of fraud? The assumption is that this is not certified illegally. Somehow though certifying an election though is a crime. So we'll see if the all prefer prison, because if they don't null and void thier election, they all are politically toast, and each of them will potentially face lawsuits for violation of the 2018 Arizona Voters Rights Act.

Of course this still will depend on the results of the audit outcome. Wait and see on that, but as a side note SCOTUS has already ruled that fraud vitiates everything in US vs. Throckmorton This is fraud, so lets see SCOTUS attempt to ignore this.

[Alberta's Child]

And yet here he is (apparently) arguing that case law in unrelated matters overrides the plain language of the U.S. Constitution. This guy would flunk any first-year law student who made such a silly claim.

[lodi90]

We’ve had 5 years of a bipartisan coup. The stolen election is merely one chapter of that book. So we have plenty of precedent for what outcome to expect here.

The state legislators are the swamp’s minor leagues. They are full of ambitious, up and coming politicians. Counting on them to do anything is a fools errand. I wish it was different but it is what it is.

[Reily]

“.. US vs. Throckmorton..” Hardly looks relevant ! See the link below ! Unless there’s another one

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148db5add7b049345478d8

[Luke21]

I love all the naysayers here. So let me get this straight. The Democrats can steal anything they want and make up rules as they go along. But we have to abide by their rules and can do nothing ever but run for the school board and vote in their fixed elections. Okay. What a system.

They don’t need to Alinsky us. We Alinsky ourselves.

[ClearCase_guy]

Two different concepts.

We are not in a situation where they will reference the obscure case of “TWIDDLE v. TWADDLE (1889) which set the precedent that when fraud is proven in a presidential election, the Democrat shall always be declared the winner. There is no such precedent. If there were, lawyers would shrug and say “That’s that”.

But the Big Boys are going to have make this one up as they go along.

The other concept (and you are correct) is that we know how this is going to go. For 5 years and more, we have seen how the courts feel about We The People. So no one should be surprised when the fraud is proven, the people are outraged, and the courts say, “We don’t care what you peasants think, we feel that you suck”.

That sort of thing will be as in-your-face as it can get. And it’s a Green Light.

Now, will it be a Green Light for complete government tyranny and burning of the Constitution? Close the churches, shut down Fox, arrest Charlie Kirk, seize all the guns?

Or will it be a Green Light for July 4 1776 v2.0?

I don’t know. The situation is unprecedented.

[Alberta's Child]

These legislatures are all full of sh!t. They knew damn well that their election processes were rife with fraud, but when they had an opportunity to actually do something about it that would have tangible results, they didn’t do a damn thing.

For example … There was nothing that would have prevented the legislature of Arizona from convening after Election Day, and before the Electoral College vote in December 2020, and voting to certify their own slate of electors to submit for the January 6th joint session of Congress.

They didn’t even have to certify Trump’s electors. They could have accomplished the same thing by certifying the electors for a minor party candidate. If a few state legislatures all did this, then neither Biden nor Trump would have reached the 270-EV threshold to win the election outright, and Congress would have elected the President.

[Who is John Galt?]

Any state that comes out months after the fact and claims that its electoral votes were cast fraudulently should immediately have its statehood revoked and revert to territorial status for a minimum of 25 years.

Better yet, throw them out of the union - which would no doubt produce a surge of fraud claims (as Free States 'bid adieu' to the rotting 'rump' of the republic ;^)...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Can’t be! I was told on FR by “experts” that there is no mechanism in place to accomplish this.

What could an Attorney and legal scholar like John Eastman possibly know that could be more accurate????

[Bellagio]

"... but it is absolutely clear and equivocal that all presidential electors must be chosen on the same day."

Clear and equivocal??

What does that mean? Equivocal means unclear and doubtful.

Are you confused? And have you actually read it??

There is NO such 'same day' requirement. Post the amendment that you believe addresses 'same day' requirement in choosing electors.

Doesn't exists. A States legislature has plenary power in appointing electors. And they can appoint them, nullify them and replace them all the way up to the day they are counted in joint session of congress by the VP.

Article II Sec 1 clause 2

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.