[Alberta's Child]

The problem with "2000 Mules" is that it exposes the flaw in having Federal courts involved in adjudicating presidential election disputes. The process of ballot harvesting is supposed to be illegal in most states -- including swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. But a legal challenge to that process from another state has no merit unless there is a single, uniform standard among all the states for choosing electors. The Constitution explicitly says this is NOT the case (the manner of choosing electors is established by the state legislatures).

So a Federal court challenge in these cases could involve the absurdity of State A (which allows "ballot harvesting," voting by mail, and absentee voting for weeks before Election Day) challenging the election results in State B (which only allows in-person voting on Election Day) because State B had the audacity to ignore cases of "ballot harvesting" -- which is perfectly legal in State A -- in a presidential election.

[DiogenesLamp]

"...because State B had the audacity to ignore cases of "ballot harvesting" -- which is perfectly legal in State A..." "Ballot Harvesting" is defacto fraud on the face of it.

Whether a state has made it "legal" or not, the courts should throw it out as inherently fraudulent.

Any election tainted with it should be regarded as null and void.

[Mr. K]

You are right abut that, but it DOES show compelling evidence of a RICO crime.