Posted on 11/19/2020 11:47:37 AM PST by rktman
In a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris demonstrated a twofold ploy of dishonesty while attempting to trap Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett in a trick question. See if you can quickly pick out the two ploys in the following short video clip: Barrett quickly caught the first ploy and responded masterfully. She responded that Harris had led with two easy questions THAT had obvious answers and then used them to falsely transition into a loaded question about climate change, which made the incorrect assumption that man-caused climate change is a settled fact. It was as incongruous as if Harris had asked, can you ride a horse? Can you ride a mule? Can you, therefore of course, fly a jet airplane?
The second blatant dishonesty from Harris was at the end of the clip, when she concluded that Barrett has made it clear that Barrett considers climate change a debatable issue. Here, when there was no time to clarify, Barrett might have otherwise been able to say, "No, that is not at all what I said. I did not say that I personally am decided, or undecided, about climate change. I said the public considers it controversial. What I said about my personal opinion is that I cannot publicly comment on whatever my opinion is until I am called upon to rule in a matter where that question would apply to a case before me."
Such an answer would, in my view, have been consistent with Barrett's other statements to the committee. Her responses to Harris also allow us to draw inferences as to Barrett's thinking when it comes to issues of fraud in the election process.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This writer says the court can rule that Trump has been reelected. I didn’t know that..
He is not ambiguous. Those are his words.
He also said they can turn it over to the legislatures. But I didn’t know that the supreme Court could decide to Trump won.
Would it be because if they nullify the electoral votes from those States and Trump has the majority, he wins? I have no idea so if I’m way off the mark sorry :-)
Kamala's nose is under the tent.
That would essentially be the approach.
They can’t do otherwise.
Whoever said folks would learn a lot more about the electoral process because of this outcome was right.
I didn’t know the supreme Court can do that. I didn’t know state legislators could decide. I didn’t know that the house had anything to do with it.
I’m not going to lie. I really didn’t even know where the heck the electoral votes were read off. Or sounded off or whatever the heck they do.
I assume they would need quite a bit of evidence to do that huh?
KumalaSutra Harris - slurping her way into high places.
In a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris demonstrated a twofold ploy of dishonesty.
Once again showing what a horse’s ass she is. Harris and Plugs...what a pathetically UNdynamic duo 🤮😝
Too much speculation at this point. We have to wait for the courts to start ruling on merits.
bkmk
It is all just that. every single word from every single person so far. You are absolutely right.
It is a little terrifying that the one word “dismissed” can erase all of this.
It reminds me of the scene in Casino when rothstein and his lawyers were getting ready to present their case and a motion to dismiss was declared before they got one word out.
Of course in real life Harry Reid was on that board and started the motion to dismiss. he was crooked even way back then.
Kamala’s nose is under the tent.
= = = = = = = = = =
One of the great conundrums
Say you have a desert meet with one of your arch enemies, it is going friendly and getting dark.
Do you allow your enemy to sleep in the tent with you OR do you give him his own ‘space’ outside the tent?
Better you leave him inside.
If you make him go outside, when he wakes up in the middle of the night, for spite he will lift up the flap of your tent and pee inside.
If you let him stay inside, he will go to the flap and raise it, thereby peeing outside, like everyone else.
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
There may be enough evidence to do the same in MI and WI. The RINOs in MI may take their stuffed and mounted nuts off the wall. The really peculiar case is GA, where there is clear evidence of fraud but the state government seems to be controlled by Never-Trump RINOs (probably corrupt).
Kamal is on the intelligence cmte, she know about the CIA involvement with Dominion
The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in cases where a state is a party. Cases involving overwhelming voter fraud in multiple states might be a case that the Supreme Court can try directly, and not in an appellate role.
That said, President Trump's team is not asking the court to make him the winner, he is asking the court to either throw out fraudulent votes or reject the certifications of vote results in states.
If the Supreme Court finds that ballots were illegal or were cast based on unconstitutional decisions by election officials, they might be able to disqualify those votes and affect the winner of the state.
If the Supreme Court finds that the allegations of fraud are provable by a preponderance of statistical and affidavit evidence but the actual tainted ballots are not distinguishable from valid ballots, they might overturn the certification and fall back on US Code 3 Chapter 1 and hand the selection of Electors to the state legislatures to determine.
The latter case is my preferred outcome because it is the earliest in the Constitutional process and lets additional procedures have a chance to be applied.
Here is a rough outline of the procedure:
Democrats will have plenty of opportunities to stall during the counting of the Electoral College votes in their joint session. It would be wrong of the Supreme Court to rule in such a way that goes straight to a 12th amendment election in the House of Representatives.
-PJ
The Supreme Court could rule as the precedent in Bush v Gore states, the courts may not set aside voting laws made by the legislature and that Secretaries of State entered consent decrees setting aside voting laws made by the legislature are null and void. Only the legislature can pass election laws.
As such, any ballots cast under these amended laws.....eg mail in ballots received after established deadlines or without signatures matched to required databases etc are invalid ballots. Who voted by mail? Overwhelmingly Democrats.
Such a ruling would be entirely constitutional and consistent with precedent. It would also take one helluva lot of guts. I’m skeptical the SCOTUS would do it.
The coordinated effort to use election fraud tactics by the DemonKKKrats caused them to disqualify the election. We learned the consequences as kids on the soccer teams. A team forfeits the game because of an ineligible player. These DemonKKKrat-ick clowns never learned anything as kids.
I think Alito and Thomas would have no problem doing it.
But that’s 2 out of 5.
And thanks. I did not know those things.
In a way, it is clear that the Democrats cheated, knowing fully well the risks and the rewards. Their calculation was that a) The fraud will be difficult to prove; b) The media will give them cover; c) There is no easy and timely remedy that will overturn the fraud. Time will tell if their calculation was right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.