MyPillow guy tells Steve Bannon that Trump 'will be back in office in August'

The Week via Yahoo ^ | 03 29 2021 | Tim O'Donnell

[TexasGurl24]

Which counties in Pennsylvania used Dominion machines? In those counties, how many did Trump win? In any of those counties, did Trump’s margin of victory increase over 2016?

Please answer these questions.

[DoodleDawg]

Legislatures could call for new elections - possible????

No.

[Dr. Franklin]

Ah, no. In the highly unlikely event that Biden was removed then the office of the president and the vice president would be vacant. Under law the Speaker of the House then becomes president.

The issue is not removing Joe and the Ho from office, but declaring they never actually won the election for the office. Thus they never held office legally. The next step would be to certify Trump as the lawful winner, and rightful president. Yes, there is a chance that the Speaker of the House would serve as president in between those two steps. Whether or not that would happen depends on how quickly the courts act to declare Trump the real winner, and how quickly the Congress certifies him as president. The courts have not functioned properly with regard to the illegal elections so far.

Which does not mean Trump would belatedly be named the winner. The best that would happen is that Biden and Harris would be removed. Presidential Line of Succession then kicks in.

See above.

[ifinnegan]

“It’s not going to happen”

Non-sequitur with regard to anything I wrote.

Anyways, you wrote it so I will follow up.

How do you know “It’s not going to happen”?

Can you tell me who will win the Kentucky Derby?

[MayflowerMadam]

If only ...

Still, I admire this guy for his tenacious character. If we had just TWO like him at the Capitol we’d be in a better place now.

He’ll have the whole 11 a.m. hour on War Room tomorrow.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I don’t know why this is coming up again.”

It’s not a case of “again”. Lindell never for one moment stopped fighting for PDJT and a fair election.

[DoodleDawg]

The issue is not removing Joe and the Ho from office, but declaring they never actually won the election for the office. Thus they never held office legally.

So say for a moment someone or some state files a writ of Quo Warranto on Biden. It isn't a trial. There is no prosecution or a defense. The purpose is to require Biden to present proof of his authority to hold the office of the President. Biden will respond that his authority comes from the results of the 2020 election, as certified by all 50 states and D.C., duly elected elected by the Electoral College, who's ballots were reviewed and certified by the House and Senate as required by law. Then what? You can claim that you have tons of evidence that the election was fraudulent, but what you lack is a court decision saying that the election was fraudulent. And the quo warranto process won't give you that. So don't put your card before your horse. Have a court rule that the election was invalid, take it through the appeals process and win at all levels, then file your writ. Wake me when you do.

[bray]

Easy for you to say hiding at home behind a computer. He is laying everything on the line to save this country so mock away.

I will stick with the fighters.

[ronniesgal]

yes, exactly. I’m hiding at home behind a computer.
You also sound a bit unhinged, and please, stick with the fighters. I’m proud of you.

[Dr. Franklin]

So say for a moment someone or some state files a writ of Quo Warranto on Biden.

No, it won't be a state. It will be a person adversely affected by the election. It could be Trump or Pence, or someone who lost her/her job, or even paid time off, because of the Biden regime.

It isn't a trial. There is no prosecution or a defense. The purpose is to require Biden to present proof of his authority to hold the office of the President. Biden will respond that his authority comes from the results of the 2020 election, as certified by all 50 states and D.C., duly elected elected by the Electoral College, who's ballots were reviewed and certified by the House and Senate as required by law. Then what?

I would expect that the matter arises from a petition to the court to grant the writ according to statute. That petition will cite evidence that the election was certified for Biden due to fraud, and it will be convincing. “Fraud vitiates everything.” United States v. Throckmorton , 98 US 61 (1878).

You can claim that you have tons of evidence that the election was fraudulent, but what you lack is a court decision saying that the election was fraudulent. And the quo warranto process won't give you that.

I won't be bringing the action, and thus I will not be the petitioner. See above.

So don't put your card before your horse.

Well, I wouldn't do that. Horses don't have money, and can't play poker...

Have a court rule that the election was invalid, take it through the appeals process and win at all levels, then file your writ. Wake me when you do.

A court in Michigan already ruled the election there was illegal. That makes it easier to prove fraud, i.e., the result wasn't caused by human error, but fraudulent ballots and counting.

Wake me when you do.

Sorry, I don't make wake up calls. Try staying at a Holiday Inn, or some such place. If you choose to sleep through as history is made, stay away from your keyboard.

[BDParrish]

The Lindell-is-a-crackpot argument works well, as does the Lin Wood-Sidney Powell argument, to suppress the information. Have you seen the guests on Mr. Lindell’s “show” and heard what they have to say? True that Lindell’s personality is not what I would choose to watch, but the testimony of his guests is compelling. Could you please tell me why I am wrong? (If you have not seen the entire program, then I do not really need your input but thanks anyway.)

[BDParrish]

:-)
“America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

― Claire Wolfe

[DoodleDawg]

I would expect that the matter arises from a petition to the court to grant the writ according to statute.

What is the statute laying out the process at the federal level?

A court in Michigan already ruled the election there was illegal.

I must have missed that one.

[Dr. Franklin]

What is the statute laying out the process at the federal level?

There is a whole chapter on the subject in the Code of the District of Columbia, as passed by Congress:
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto.

I must have missed that one.

WAKE UP RIP VAN WINKLE! This is old news:
Michigan judge rules secretary of state violated election law by unilaterally changing absentee voting rules
A majority of judges on WI's Supreme Court also found that vote by mail was not conducted according to statute there, but would not, or could not, throw out those votes.

[DoodleDawg]

WAKE UP RIP VAN WINKLE! This is old news:

Where did they rule the whole election illegal?

[yesthatjallen]

“I don’t know why this is coming up again.”

Bad choice of words on my part.

I'm frustrated like many other that people keep telling us they're going to expose the corruption and fraud but tell us we have to wait.

Since the election, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop and it hasn't.

Is the shoe going to drop? Is there a shoe to drop?

[The Pack Knight]

He held that signature-matching guidance issued by Benson was not a valid “rule” under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. He certainly did not declare the election “illegal.”

In fact, he dismissed as moot the plaintiffs’ claim that the guidance violated the Michigan constitution by diluting votes, and he also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for an audit to find out the effect of the guidance on the 2020 election.

There is absolutely nothing in the judge’s order even hinting that the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Michigan were invalid.

[Dr. Franklin]

He held that signature-matching guidance issued by Benson was not a valid “rule” under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. He certainly did not declare the election “illegal.”

The election was conducted by rules that weren't legal. Therefore, any reasonable person can conclude the elections were in fact illegal. A conclusion to the contrary is pure sophism.

In fact, he dismissed as moot the plaintiffs’ claim that the guidance violated the Michigan constitution by diluting votes, and he also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for an audit to find out the effect of the guidance on the 2020 election.

Right, the election was conducted unlawfully, but the judges will not craft a remedy. It is being treated as an "error", not fraud. The statutes were designed to prevent fraud, but without showing fraud the courts did not intervene. Now the fraud claim will be made, with evidence heretofore unavailable.

There is absolutely nothing in the judge’s order even hinting that the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Michigan were invalid.

Only if one accepts that an election conducted unlawfully could be valid. The continuing theme is that U.S. courts refuse to afford a remedy for an unlawful election, contrary to the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Compare that to the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine where the Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered the election re-run because the election had been so compromised by fraud. The only way to distinguish the results is that no fraud claim about the election has yet been made. It is coming soon.

[DoodleDawg]

How about the federal statute?

[Dr. Franklin]

How about the federal statute?

Yes, how about it?