Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boise3981

Otherwise, I think you are in error in your expectation of the meaning... and the irreversibly... of having certified a result as “not fraudulent”, as when it is later proved that result was in fact fraudulent... perhaps also that the act of certification itself was a knowing fraud, and a continuation of a patter of fraud.

The error is in logic, versus law, as the assumption is that the acts undertaken are undertaken in good faith. If you can prove the acts were not done in good faith... you lose the benefit of the assumption.


73 posted on 12/04/2020 9:13:06 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Sense
I'm just looking at the EC and the intent of the framers.

Hamilton argues in the Federalist Papers that the EC can act as a check on the will of the voters - to rebel against someone manifestly unqualified.

But at that point the electoral college votes are independent from the 11/3 election. Meaning that if you prove something after the electoral college votes... then it's too late because the electoral college has already voted and rendered the 11/3 election moot.

It's the electoral college vote that REALLY counts. And time is basically up.

(Plus, I'm not sure you've noticed... but Powell is NOT doing well in court. She's making Giuliani look good by comparison. It's really bad...)
75 posted on 12/04/2020 9:19:26 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Sense
perhaps also that the act of certification itself was a knowing fraud, and a continuation of a pattern of fraud

Yes! Evidence was rolling in before the states were certified.

104 posted on 12/05/2020 3:22:52 AM PST by SisterK (its a spiritual war )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson