I'm old enough to remember when "Sharles" Cooke got booted off Free Republic for being his lovable NeverTrump self. 
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 ...
I'm old enough to remember when "Sharles" Cooke got booted off Free Republic for being his lovable NeverTrump self.
I hope Trump doesn’t really believe this. There aint no way the Vote Thieves are going to let little details like “The Law” interfere with their now achieved power grab.
Any conservative is only ‘spinning their wheels’ to believe it and allow themselves to get all pumped up.
And now Mike Lindell is taking some credit for Trump’s alleged claim...
“If Trump is saying August, that is probably because he heard me say it publicly,” Lindell told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.
Trump should continue supporting the investigation of election fraud, and pushing for more secure elections and laws to ensure them. I’m skeptical that he actually made this “reinstatement” prediction/claim because it would only hurt his credibility.
So a media nitwit invents something up out of whole cloth and National Review’s take is — we agree with her.
These folks are lost...
Fraud changes everything.
Long long shot but if the pubs sweep the midterms with yuuuge majorities and they impeach Biden and Harris with Trump running for Congress and being elected speaker. Like I said way outiside the box long shot but could that work? I know probably as likely as an August return this year for Trump as proposed in the first place.
You don’t quite seem to get it.
Fraud is a CRIME.
People would be ARRESTED, not subjects of a civil suit.
So you are arguing for rebellion?
All I can say is that if that report is true it can’t happen soon enough.
Then these Rats that occupy our present government should be tried for Treason and attempting to overthrow the government.
The Constitution was written to protect the people from an oppressive government. The Constitution is silent on matters such as this. When it is silent then power is shifted to the various states. The solution is up to the state legislatures and decisions coming from SCUTUS. IMHO
National Review? Are they still around? For whom?
More Russian disinfo for the nutcases.
The Great Troller lives rent-free in their heads.
On a side note I read Pence is acting like a future candidate. I would never vote for him. Not because of 6 Jan 2021, but because he is a long term swamp critter. He is Ryan's pick.
Circle jerk.
“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?”
Only 121 House members and seven Senators can be considered legitimate.
Their votes are all that matter.
Only through impeachment, but that would require large majority in the Senate.
Only by the Senate itself, which is the "judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." Is there a Democrat Senator with sufficient integrity to vote to potentially forfeit his own party's majority if he was convinced of election fraud? I would like to think so...
There is also a potential legal question as to whether such a vote amounts to an expulsion requiring a two-thirds majority. I don't think it does, and I also doubt any court has jurisdiction to resolve this question, but I would certainly anticipate litigation over it.
The bigger point is contained in the word "illegitimate". States would be well within their rights to ignore any legislation passed by an illegitimate Congress and signed by an illegitimate President.
I don't think so. The "Principles of '98" weren't even widely accepted in 1798, and any notion of state nullification as a legitimate doctrine for resolving constitutional disputes has been killed and buried by the intervening two centuries of American history.
Waiting for your answer.
When National Review endorses a position taken by Maggiie Haberman we have reached the end of times. Intellectual conservatism is dead of its own impotence, it’s inability to sully pure conservative thinking with action. It conservatism isn’t getting bloody and sweaty fighting in the ring it is a ass, as most assuredly is the NR, may WFB RIP.
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.