Alan said:
Trump's legal team has failed in every past allegation, even in Scotus, will they succeed in this one ??

How do they prove election results are skewed if all their past evidences have failed to do it??

.

Yeti said:
I was wondering the same thing. If they can go into court with mountains of proof of vote fraud and get thrown out, this seems like a long shot.
.
Besides, if they can't even argue that fraudulent votes were cast, then how can they argue there is anything wrong with how the election went down?

I've been reading up on this lawsuit and it has nothing to do with fraud; it has to do with the contractual agreement that every state has with each other, due to the Constitution.
.
1)  The reason that TX (and all the other states) can file a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS is because they are alleging that the 4 states in question violated the Constitution and therefore, the entire Presidential election lacks integrity and can't be trusted.
.
2)  The Constitution clearly says that each state's election process is determined by the LEGISLATURE of each state alone.  The 4 states in question "changed" their election laws by way of executive order or judicial ruling (to allow mail-in voting past the normal deadlines).  Because the Legislatures did not approve of the changes, then TX and others are arguing that those 4 states' ENTIRE process is unconstitutional (because it's impossible to investigate and determine which votes are valid and which aren't, in the time period before Jan 6).
.
3)  Because these 4 states violated the Constitution, then TX and others are saying that their elections cannot be "certified" by the normal process and the Legislatures of each of the 4 states must determine the electors to send to the electoral college (instead of using the vote counts).
.
4)  If in these 4 states there is a conflict where the Governors/Secretary of State (i.e. the normal process) decide to send electors based on the unconstitutional vote, and the state legislators want to send their electors, then ...I believe that SCOTUS can rule that the entire national election "lacks integrity" and then the election must go to plan B.
.
5)  Plan B per the Constitution - Each state (i.e. 50 votes total), based on the majority of each state's legislature, gets 1 vote on who is the President.  There are 27 Republican controlled states, 21 Democratic states and 2 undecided.  So Trump would be elected this way.
.
I don't know if #5 Plan B has ever been used in history, but there has been a few times where there was conflict in multiple states, #4.  The US Congress had to call a special committee to figure it out, as multiple states sent 2 different, opposing elector groups to vote.  I think it happened in the early 1900s.  Can't remember the president.

I don't think we're going to vote, legislate or litigate our way out of this.
The commies, with the backing of the globalists, big tech and wall street have decided our fate for us.

There's only one way out of this. And it's not going to be pretty.

Agree.  I see these two positions as mutually exclusive.  It was difficult to tolerate the left before they stole power.  Now it is ѕυιcιdє to accept it.  People know or are quickly waking up to the fact , that the left will destroy them.  They are also insane, like a rabid dog.
Only cure is bullets.
Have any insane leftists ever converted?

4)  If in these 4 states there is a conflict where the Governors/Secretary of State (i.e. the normal process) decide to send electors based on the unconstitutional vote, and the state legislators want to send their electors, then ...I believe that SCOTUS can rule that the entire national election "lacks integrity" and then the election must go to plan B.
.
5)  Plan B per the Constitution - Each state (i.e. 50 votes total), based on the majority of each state's legislature, gets 1 vote on who is the President.  There are 27 Republican controlled states, 21 Democratic states and 2 undecided.  So Trump would be elected this way.

Conceding, for the sake of argument, that Trump is a "hot mess" who has nevertheless done great things for this country (such as nominating three conservative Supreme Court Justices who, one hopes, would make pro-life decisions), this is definitely the "Lepanto option".

And remember what happened there. 

And how it happened!  To the beads, friends, to the beads!