I share your belief that the election was not fair, and I agree with your assessment of its destructive potential for our nation's future. I have looked into this burlesque of an election as intently as my limited knowledge of the law and the inner workings of the cyberworld permit.
This is my take:
1. Powell's, Wood's etc. work is crucial in pointing to the cyber fraud. This is important for state legislators and members of Congress as to formulating their actions.
2. Rudy's team is pointing to the evidence of the mail fraud etc. aspect of the charade. Very important for the same reason as in 1. above.
3. If the SCOTUS agrees to hear any of the lawsuit appeals, I believe there will be four automatic opinions favorable to Biden. And a possible fifth, Kavanaugh?, definitely worries me.
4. IMO, the best chance for Trump to prevail is in the state legislatures and the Congress. Some very erudite FReepers have been kicking around the pros and cons of this possibility. The law (Constitution Art. VI cl. 2; Amds. 12/20/25 and US Code e.g. 3 USC §s 5 & 15) could be the deciding factors in this situation.
I just don't think the supremes would overturn an election when a remedy, no matter how thin, could be available to the state legislatures and the Congress. There are also questions as to what role Rat governors might play in the states with GOP legislatures (MI, PA, WI) when it comes to submitting Electoral vote slates to the Congress.
I apologize for the length of this, but it is a complicated business with a nation's future in doubt. Especially with the Jan. 20, 2021 date hanging over our heads.
Not at all too long.
All I heard all day was how there was no sign of voter fraud....Chuck Todd said it repeatedly but every other anchor kept saying it.
Are these people not listening to the “evidence” presented by Powell, et al?
Then CNN had Reub. Ray Blount on, who cavalierly said he hopes Trump will be at Biden’s inauguration.
I am sorry. I am broken-hearted....but our Ruling Class does not want Trump and we can’t do a thing about it.
From what most of us have seen and read so far this looks like a valid statement.Here's the problem. How can anyone call this recent "vote" an election. Its more of a fraudulent effort at pre-selecting a candidate than what we know as an election. It just was not an election it was not even close to being an election it was a planned coronation of one party so well planned you cant or should not use the word election. Seen in that light maybe scotus can look at it using a different view. There was nothing fair or balanced or legal about the recent election. So scotus would not be electing or selecting a potus merely slapping down criminality which is their job. IF they cant punish criminals who can?