Texas is disputing US election results in 4 swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & Georgia

Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states

Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after

Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules

On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly (https://t.co/CUQ8YQtP5e)
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not https://t.co/pixbZFSMHk
The below is also worth noting: https://t.co/62hSyFeXqq
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
There is now this too: https://t.co/X4FqCdikug
If US Supreme Court rules for Texas, by not allowing the swing states’ Electoral College votes due to unconstitutional judicial activism, then neither candidate has reached the 270 threshold

In such a scenario, Congress decides: 1 vote per state only

And that means a Trump win.
I do not know if any of the above will happen. It’s just one of the routes that remain open to Trump, and it demonstrates why it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Regardless, this entire saga *is news*. The Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation in history refused to concede, claiming a foreign breach. That would be an act of war.

That’s my main point, which most people (nearly all MSM) seem to be ignoring for whatever (!) reason
On the ‘safe harbour’ issue: https://t.co/KnGSWdhRhx

More from Maajid أبو عمّار

THREAD:
Instead of attacking those of us raising it, why aren’t mainstream “liberal” journalists on here as outraged as we are about how many senior Democratic Party figures seem to have been compromised by Chinese spies?

Genocide is non-negotiable

#TAGG 🧿

See examples:

1) Dem Senator Feinstein’s staffer for 20 years outed as a Chinese spy


2) Dem Eric Swallwell caught in a female Chinese spy’s snare:


3) Dem Senator Boxer registers as a foreign agent for Chinese surveillance firm:


3) Dem Hunter Biden allegedly invests in Megvii, a firm accused of helping to round up Uyghurs using A+++ facial recognition technology
Analysis

The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue

They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations

Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?

Read my THREAD:


1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one


2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)

Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied

ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate

Note: in the key swing states, this is legal


OR:

iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.

3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?

Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis

Trump wins that vote.

More from Politics

1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

You May Also Like