Posted on 06/03/2021 10:45:27 AM PDT by RandFan
Two days ago, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported that Donald Trump “has been telling a number of people he’s in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August.” In response, many figures on the right inserted their fingers into their ears and started screaming about fake news.
Instead, they should have listened — because Haberman’s reporting was correct. I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed. I can attest, too, that Trump is trying hard to recruit journalists, politicians, and other influential figures to promulgate this belief — not as a fundraising tool or an infantile bit of trolling or a trial balloon, but as a fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Both.
You nailed it. Nothing could have made that clearer than they way they handle the Hunter Biden revelations in 2020. Their mission isn’t to report any more than a PR firm’s mission is to report. Their job is to push a narrative, truth be damned.
What? Charles Cooke is a true journalist who has worked for the NY Times, Washington Post, and the LA Times. And now he is the editor of the psudo conservative rag the National Review. I mean just look at some of its open minded reporting. By all these open minded Connedservatives
And now with no proof backs up NY Times reknown liar Maggie Haberman. Now thats what I call journalism!
You answered your own question. It very plainly starts with:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President
There is only one remedy, impeachment, which will never happen. Focus on winning the next election, the last one is done and immutable.
The Ten Commandments were carved in stone, with God’s own finger. But of course, stone tablets can be (and were once) broken.
What substantial number of bad actors among the small group that President Trump would confide in would turn around and confide in either Haberman or Cooke on such a sensitive matter?
This does not pass the laugh test.
When this stuff bubbles up there are always more interesting questions. Here I wonder: Why are they making up this particular story? Why at this particular juncture? To what ends?
It is worth adding that there can be a germ of truth from these two. Did Trump casually and jokingly throw out a half-sentence in front of three people he was playing golf with and four caddies that ... who knows where this could all go? Surely that’s in the realm of possibility.
Are you thinking about Mollie Hemingway?
You will need to tell us all how? There is nothing.
Biden can be impeached and fraudulently elected Senators and Congress critters removed from office.
If cheating is proved, the only way the Democrats can retain any credibility is to remove the “cheats” from office. If they don’t, the party won’t have a chance for 20 years at least. Everyone will be on the lookout for fraud in 2022 and 2024, which means a Republican landslide nationwide.
Kind of like a 2 year old’s imaginary friends. The most reliable sources are in your own head.
................................................
When I was 4/5 years old I had an imaginary friend at the beach whenever my parents took me there. His name was Mr. Bucket. He would materialize whenever I was playing in the sand with my little bucket and shovel! Thanks for triggering the recollection!
“from speaking to an array of different sources”
lol.\\
Yup
The reliable ol telephone game
Aka
Garbage in/ garbage out.
Urinalists , reporting rain on our legs.
The second sentence is interesting because it suggests that safe-harbor dates are not immutable: If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term... It's possible that this phrase allows for Congress not accepting the vote of the Electoral College, but it suggests that missing a safe-harbor date for the Electoral College can result in a President not having qualified by the time fixed for beginning his term.
And now, there is an "or" in this sentence: or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify... This reads that a President elect failing to qualify is a separate condition from not being chosen by the time fixed for the beginning of his term.
That's why I ask if failure to qualify can be retroactively determined if a crime and cover-up are eventually discovered by the winner of the election?
-PJ
It’s interesting how Journalists are reporting on other Journalists reporting.... as news today. Same with tv pundits. They’ve become the stories./
Otherwise known in the media as
Product.
I believe it was Lincoln who state the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
If the “electors have spoken,” and they have certified an election gotten to by illegitimate and even criminal means, then how does even the electors and the certification of such an election even stand? How can it stand?
Truly a Constitutional crisis.
questions for you.
Is this country following the laws of the constitution?
Nope, Trump is right.
Fraud will be proven. Now, how is the system going to react is a question mark? Surely, elections have been overturned before.
At levels of congressmen.
Never at presidential or Senate (to my knowledge), but precedent is here. Senate is the same as congress, by judge decision, after proving fraud.
As far as President, the states could rescind the electors and use the alternative votes. They (the Republican electors) all voted in December anyway. That was the reason, why have they voted. So there will be alternative votes ready, just in this case.
DJT is the victim of the greatest Steal in political history, but that said half the country still believes he’s a Russian spy sent here by Putin to destroy America. I give his chances of a presidential return as the same as me playing center for the Brooklyn Nets this Saturday night.
In theory, Congress could reverse the certification of the electors. But in what universe is Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer going to go along with that?
Granted, it requires 2/3 vote of the Senate to do it, but imagine the outcry if the fraud is incontrovertible and they don't, if said Senators refuse to resign?
Better keep those troops at the Capitol.
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.