Did you know Trump could have legally been president again by next year?

[Anonymous]

Step 1. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was massive election fraud in 2020

Step 2. Wait for a massive red wave in 2022, driven by reasonable people's disgust at being cheated

Step 3. Get Trump voted Speaker of the House

Step 4. Impeach and convict Biden and Harris for involvement in the proven fraud, possibly just for benefitting from it

Step 5. Swear in President Trump, 47th President of the United States

Step 6. Change the law on term limits to allow at least one more run, it's only fair

All without terminating the constitution.

If I can come up with this, so could Trump's lawyers. Why do you think Trump won't be president next year? Or is there a flaw in that plan?

Updates

1 y

Thanks to the administrators for restoring this question after it was hidden on a report of "spamming or trolling". They correctly understand that provocative is not the same thing at all.

[Twalli]

1) They couldn't
2) It didn't happen
3) Trump would have to run to be elected as a representative
4) Look at 1
6) The law hasn't been overturned yet, so I don't think it will be

if 2 happened, we might no longer have been a democracy. It's sad but true. All dictators, for the most part, were elected. If we elected people who would only validate elections if their preferred candidate won, we'd be in a dictatorship. That's why this midterm was such an important election.
I may not like DeSantis, Pence, or multiple other conservatives who are going to be running, but I think they will accept the results of the election. It's sad that Mehmet Oz and Herschel Walker are lauded for accepting the results of the elections in their state. It used to be common practice. It was common practice until the presidential election of 2020, even then it was only one person who refused to accept the results (at least one electable person).

[Asker]

But do you agree, if there was proof of massive fraud in a US presidential election, the loser could get themselves reinstated after the midterms? Legally, within the constitution.

[Twalli]

It's possible but unlikely. The fraud would have to have been proven to have changed the votes in several states (PA, GA, and AZ) for starters. Then it would have to prove that the fraud happened at the level of the election counters. Then we would have to find out if the actual votes are still available. If the fraud was electronic, then we don't know what the actual votes were, so they'd have to vote again. Also if it was electronic we would need to find out of Biden and Harris were complicit. Just because someone benefitted, it doesn't mean they were complicit (watch the TV show Scandal). Overall to do what he'd need to do, my guess is it would take over 4 years. Could it happen? Yes, but these things take a long time and I don't know if it would be in time for it to matter.

[Asker]

I think the voting systems now take the obvious safety step of printing the ballot out, which means it can be checked by the voter and counted by hand. In that case, electronic fraud is impossible. Proving wrongdoing doesn't usually take that long, and Trump was claiming proof from before the election.

The only explanation I can think of why Trump didn't follow my "plan" is that he didn't really have any evidence after all. Maybe he wasn't really telling the truth about everything.

[Twalli]

He had no proof, and couldn't find any.

[Asker]

Of course not, it never happened.

[Twalli]

I agree.

[abc3643]

You wrote:

"Step 1. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was massive election fraud in 2020."

I am not going to debate proof because that's not my issue.

My issue is a basic question - in fact, the first question - of law:

For anything to happen, this "proof" needs to be in a court of law. What court has jurisdiction?

HINT: The US Supreme Court will NOT have original jurisdiction; that's spelled out in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

[Asker]

Well, I suppose it would have to be in the state courts, appealed to higher courts. It would have to be backed by real, hard, evidence.

[abc3643]

OK, so, a state court. That doesn't overturn the election and reinstate Trump because state courts only have jurisdiction in their states.

Now, just in case your thinking jumps the gun a bit, states CAN sue states (it happens all the time) with the US Supreme Court getting original jurisdiction. However, in the 2020 election cycle, some states did try and sue the other states over the election. The case was Texas v. Pennsylvania in which the Attorney General for Texas wanted to sue Pennsylvania for how PA was running its elections and that this was adversely affecting the votes and the election overall thus hurting Texas voters.

Per SCOTUSblog:
www.scotusblog.com/.../
Texas v. Pennsylvania
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily prevent Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying their 2020 election results because changes to those states' election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Constitution.

(more)

[abc3643]

The Supreme Court (aka SCOTUS) dismissed the claim because Texas lacked "standing" (*). Per the US Supreme Court order:
www.supremecourt.gov/.../121120zr_p860.pdf

"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

In other words, the SCOTUS said to Texas "Mind your own business." More formally, Texas has no business in how other states run their elections. This is per the Elections Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1) which is:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

By the way, the Elections Clause was at issue in a very big SCOTUS case argued this week involving gerrymandering in North Carolina and something called the "Independent State Legislature Theory" in which, per the Elections Clause, ONLY a state legislature gets to describe how elections work in that state and that the state legislature is NOT subject to judicial review for constitutionality by its own state courts. The case is Moore v. Harper and is described here in SCOTUSblog.
www.scotusblog.com/.../

(*) OK, "standing" is the second question in a law case. Basically, having standing means that you are a legitimate party to file a lawsuit within the jurisdiction.
As explained by Cornell's Legal Information Institute...
www.law.cornell.edu/.../standing-requirement-overview

[Asker]

I appreciate your extensive research, but bear in mind my "plan" relies on being able to prove "massive fraud". I'm just saying, if you could do that, you could legally take back the presidency after a couple of years, so if Trump could prove massive fraud he could have been president in a couple of months past the midterms. He didn't (couldn't), so all his lies about the election are once again exposed.

[abc3643]

No you can't.
Massive fraud is meaningless and moot because a "reset", so to speak, happens in the next election.

Let me give you and example. Ever heard of "The 28-out Perfect Game"?
It occurred in 2010 and I was watching it on ESPN.
In the 9th inning, with 2 outs, the Detroit Tigers pitcher was throwing a perfect game. The 27th batter comes up. He hits a more-or-less weak infield ground ball. The ball is thrown to the first baseman and the runner is out... except that he's not! The first base umpire made a mistake. While it was very clear that the runner was out at first, the first base umpire ruled the runner safe. The perfect game is blown. Everyone in the universe knows what the truth is including the umpire after he reviews the tape - but this was before teams could challenge the umpire... So, the batter is considered safe with an infield hit. The next batter is then out and the game is over. Now, at the time, there was a huge uproar about this...
Should the pitcher be awarded a perfect game? With an asterisk maybe?
Should the umpire be punished or fired?
What about the statistics? After all, another batter did have a plate appearance and his out affects his batting average...
etc.
In the end, nothing was done other than apologies and forgiveness. We all know the guy threw a perfect game even though, on the books, he didn't. In some ways, he threw the most famous perfect game outside of Don Larsen's World Series perfect game in 1956.
My point is, a grave injustice was done, but life moves on. We don't get to reverse things.

Trump's not President. At this instant in time, nothing is preventing him from winning in 2024 as he did in 2016.

[abc3643]

Just a bit of an aside.
The blown perfect game is a huge reason WHY we now have reviews of umpire calls. Had that play been challenged by the Tigers, the review would have corrected the umpire's error, the runner would be out, and the pitcher would have gotten his perfect game.

My point is that the problem drove a new type of fix so that problem does not reoccur.

With the 2020 election, politicians need to come up with a constitutionally acceptable method to prevent the problems that occurred in 2020. Good luck with that though. The Elections Clause makes that rather difficult.

[abc3643]

Anyway, I think this will all be moot.
Trump may have sufficient legal problems that he may not be able to even be President soon enough although his legal team would likely challenge that in court.

[NamerOfStars]

Yes- if he'd been elected. He wasn't. "Massive fraud" would require the production of evidence, which probably would've been found by this point. We could ameliorate the worst of this by simply having the President elected by popular vote, but Republicans have a serious problem with that idea, for no real reason they've ever been able to articulate to me. As it stands, there's no Constitutional need to determine the popular vote AT ALL- it's all down to the members of the Electoral College, who are under no obligation to even consider how the people voted (Federally, that is- a few states DO mandate how those votes are to be cast, and good for them; Maine and Nebraska even break them up to give percentages to candidates based on popular vote).

The problems with you plan are fourfold: first, the lack of evidence of fraud. This is self-explanatory. Second, the fact that most people weren't particularly upset about it. The massed people's disgust was far more due to Democrat-driven Covid restrictions and the resultant economic damage, and frankly, it wasn't all that big anyway (although how much of that was due to knee-jerk voting by party and how much was simple short-sightedness isn't clear). Third, the Speaker is chosen by the members of the House, and many Republicans don't like Trump (remember that they're individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves). Fourth, Trump is, in a word, Trump- while you or I would be content with attaining the presidency that way, that requires a person put their ego in check enough to admit that they might not win legitimately- and he just can't do that.

Also, impeachment is just a censure; a formalized slap on the wrist. It's not the same as being removed from office. But that's just semantics.

[Asker]

It's not a plan, it's just a legal way to deal with (real) massive fraud in an election within the constitution.

Like you say, it depends on being able to prove it, which notably hasn't happened. That's obviously because it can't, there's no evidence even after two years and a million promises.

I think perhaps even Democratic members of the House, and the Senate, would vote against proven cheaters. The important word being "proven".

"Fourth, Trump is, in a word, Trump- while you or I would be content with attaining the presidency that way, that requires a person put their ego in check enough to admit that they might not win legitimately- and he just can't do that."
I'm not sure he wouldn't go for it, he'd be being vindicated in his claims that he was robbed. Also, the end justifies the means, like accepting help from Russia. The only reason he wouldn't is because he couldn't; there simply is no evidence of fraud.

"Also, impeachment is just a censure; a formalized slap on the wrist. It's not the same as being removed from office."
I did say "... and convict", which results in removal from office. It's what Republican senators refused to do, twice.

[NamerOfStars]

Again, man- evidence. There's just as much showing Trump colluding with Russia as for Biden cheating in 2020. Think before you criticize.

[Asker]

Far more. There was a lot of obstruction by Trump and his gang.

[Anonymous]

The flaw in your plan is #1 and #2 didn’t materialize and there’s no way the GOP elects him Speaker. They desperately want to rid themselves of the albatross around their necks. His interference has cost them the senate in the last 2 election cycles. At this point, Merrick Garland indicting him would be a gift. Then they could run a candidate who could actually win a general election without alienating his fickle cultish base. Trump will most likely never hold office again. He’ll be lucky to keep his freedom at this point.

[Asker]

You're right, but I still think it's worth indicting him and sending him to prison for a very long time. Ford should never have pardoned Nixon.

[NaultD]

"If I can come up with this, so could Trump's lawyers."

The reality is they didn't have the anything. Over 100 court hearings and all they needed was a single scrap of evidence. It didn't even have to be above a reasonable doubt. Just a 50/50 probably some wrong doing was going on and a full blown investigation would be approved without hesitation.

[Asker]

I'm sure they're just waiting for the right time to release the evidence. :)

[NaultD]

What I'm talking about was back in December 2020. You remember rudy and his melting face all that jazz before getting disbarred for wasting the courts time from trump appointed judges.

Lying is going to jail. Having nothing gets you fired. Don never had anything and will never have any evidence. All don needed is 1 single evidence with a 50/50 probably of something somehow happening. He doesn't and will never get it because it dosen't exist.

[Asker]

Ah, poor Rudy, who's facing disbarment in DC right now. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[jshm2]

Can't prove a negative, dumbass.

Every court in the land threw out the initial claim of there being any fraud in 2020. Your "plan" fails at the first step!

[Asker]

You can prove something happened, if it did. You just need evidence. Mike Lindell has evidence, Rudy Guiliani has evidence, Trump has evidence. All they had to do was release it!

[Agape93]

Uh no. You'd have to remove Biden, Harris, his entire cabinet and several members of congress for that to happen. Even if you did, a new election would be held, they wouldn't and can't just appoint the prior president.

Also, even if he did get sworn in next year, he could not legally run again in 2024 as finishing bidens term legally counts as another term.

[Asker]

Did you see a response earlier? I think I posted the order of succession, and I know you're not the type to delete comments. Is GaG acting up?

[Agape93]

I didn't get one, what did it say?

[Asker]

Basically, second in line is Speaker, after VP, which could be Trump because the Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House of Representatives (there have been some suggestions Democrats would vote with a few Republicans to elect Liz Cheney to the post). Impeach POTUS and VPOTUS in the same trial, and Trump becomes president.

[Agape93]

Ah gotcha

[tfan1]

To the ones who don’t believe there was no fraud - Explain how the republicans were sent home early, and the video cameras actually caught the demonic rats bringing in illegal cases of ballots? Busted! Dominion computers were proved fawlty and whenever anyone pushed the button on the electronic voting machines for Trump that the button for biden actually lit up instead of Trump? Two pieces of damning evidence right there!

[Asker]

None of that is true. If it were, the time to present it would have been before the elections were certified, the place would have been the courts. If there was genuine proof that came out after the election, Trump could have publicised it in order to influence the 2022 election.

Guiliani is in the process of being disbarred because he "weaponized his law license to bring a frivolous action in an attempt to undermine the Constitution."

[tfan1]

Bull. Dominion proved it. But the damn demonic rats will say and do Anything to hold their power and get more of it.

[Asker]

Have you heard Fox News say a word about Dominion since they got sued?

[exitseven]

I have heard this before. Trump did not want to run for a House seat in Florida even though it would have been a slam dunk.

[Asker]

He would have looked too needy. And he'd still have failed at step 1.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Can the Yankees impeach Trumpf? 🍑 Is it likely to happen?

[AngryCarl]

There's an even simpler way. Wait for Biden to fuck up and run again as a Republican.

[BeMuse]

None of what you mentioned is necessary...

[BeMuse]

[Asker]

Only if you think it's reasonable to ignore the constitution. If you support the constitution, there's a way to deal with a stolen election. It involves proving it, before the courts and before the people.

[BeMuse]

Nope. That was already attempted, and congress violated their oath and the Constitution. Therefore there is no longer a need to prove anything, just remove the people that violated the constitution and their oath. Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. If the Supreme Court remembers their oath, then that is how it will go. Once done Trump is President by default if the Supreme Courts decides to rule that way. Otherwise maybe you have a new election in 2023 supervised by the military. This is why Trump is asking the questions now. Trump followed his oath and took all the proper legal procedures. Others in government broke the law. That said, even when the proper thing is done by the book, it is still important to get a feeling of the public sentiment in order to reestablish public confidence.

[BeMuse]

Oh and by the way, anything a day past 2 years and Trump can serve the rest of that term and still run for a second term in 2024 given that it is less than half a term would be remaining. That's the law...

[Asker]

OK, step 6 is redundant. The people who broke their oaths of office are Trump and the congresspeople who voted not to confirm states' results despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. Trump hasn't proven anything (because he knew he'd lost).

Do you know where Guiliani is this week? In DC, trying to keep his licence to practice law because he knowingly filed frivolous lawsuits to try to delay or overturn the 2020 election.

[BeMuse]

In correct, but keep pushing your propaganda. You should really learn the law.

[BeMuse]

It's funny though when someone points out facts, all you can do is try to change the subject to Guiliani. All your people are fucked.

[BeMuse]

Let this sink in...

18 U. S. Code § 2381
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

[BeMuse]

Hillary Knows...

[BeMuse]

When the allegations of a rigged election came forward the Congress had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office. All they had to do is take 7 days to review it... Instead, ANTIFA, BLM, Ukrainian Nazis, and the FBI ran a false flag on January 6 and the investigation was skipped. 147 Republican members of Congress voiced concerns in an attempt to represent the people. The rest refused to investigate. This constitutes fraud, and a direct violation of their oath of office.

[BeMuse]

All but the 147 members that voiced concern and wished to carry out an investigation of how Biden "won the election", have committed an act of treason and an act of levying war against the United States of America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suWzbvZOWWk

[BeMuse]

D. C. is an occupied territory... Law of War now applies... Learn our laws.

dod.defense.gov/.../...%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf

[Asker]

LOL at the propagandist supporting the guy who literally waged war against the United States accusing me of propaganda. You're going to be a terrorist, aren't you? Like the guy who attacked the FBI and the morons who put thousands of people's lives in danger to stop a drag show.

I guess you think the lack of evidence of fraud in 2020 is proof of fraud.

[BeMuse]

Good luck your your propaganda. It won't make any difference. What I mentioned has already risen through the courts. It was allowed to rise by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was not blocked or stalled by the DOJ in defense of Congress. It has been docketed for conference by the Supreme Court of the United States for January 6, 2023. It doesn't matter how much propaganda you push, at the end of the day the law is the law.

[BeMuse]

So hold your dick and cry, because that's all you have the power to do now...

[Asker]

OMG, you mean Brunson v. Alma S. Adams? LMAO. Sure, sue Congress for doing their job.

"On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII. During this Proceeding over 100 members of U. S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents."
Funny how those claims never amounted to anything, isn't it?

The full text is here:

www.supremecourt.gov/.../...-95757954-00007015.pdf

[BeMuse]

The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't take cases they don't want to hear. They literally have to steer them in the lower courts in order for them to get to the Supreme Court of the United States in the first place. They want to hear the case. None of the defendant did anything to stall the case even though they could have tried. The The Supreme Court of the United States even docketed it on January 6 just to rub it in the face like people like you. It's pretty hilarious.

[BeMuse]

It's funny that you're so oblivious to the numerous cases that have been won and how just about every policy from the Democrat party has been repeatedly blocked and overturned by the courts over the past two years and your team took major losses for example on Roe v. Wade yet you're still hollering like a retard that nothing is happening in the courts. You guys have lost so many cases it's laughable.

[Asker]

"The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't take cases they don't want to hear."
It's on the docket to establish whether or not it will be heard by SCOTUS. It won't be, it's a frivolous lawsuit.

For a start, this part is a lie: "over 100 members of U. S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged" (or, if it's not, the claims were).

[BeMuse]

147 members of congress claimed their were concerns about the election and wanted to go forward with investigations. There were 8 senators and 139 house representatives. Last time I checked 147 is more than 100. I guess they never taught you that in school.

[BeMuse]

*there

[BeMuse]

www.reuters.com/.../

[Asker]

Yes, 147 is "over 100", which is the number I quoted from the frivolous lawsuit. That Reuters article is really interesting, it's a list of the lawmakers all denying that they claimed there was fraud. I'll repeat the link, it proves my point so well: www.reuters.com/.../

[BeMuse]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a judge can dismiss a frivolous case if he has factual evidence that an allegation could not be true. Obviously the Supreme Court of the United States thinks you're wrong and they don't worry about how fake news twists a narrative with propaganda. The point of the link is to show the 147 people. You can just as easily find other narratives that call the same 147 people treasonous election deniers. It's hilarious that you think propaganda is ""proof". You're truly a moron.

[BeMuse]

All you are suppose to take away from that is 147 Republicans voted against certifying the 2020 election results on that day. Their Constitutional duty required them to investigate election fraud concerns. It doesn't matter if fraud happened or didn't happen. The question was raised and it was their obligation to investigate. All the rest ignored their duty. You don't even understand the complaint.

[Asker]

Any questions about the election had been handled in the courts the previous year. Those 147 Republicans were operating in bad faith, not the ones who are being sued. See you on the 10th, when the SCOTUS decision not to hear that frivolous lawsuit is published.