Lin Wood on Jenna Ellis' saying Trump cannot be reinstated
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
I get what you are saying, but if Biden was sworn in a President, lawfully elected or not, doesn't that still make him president? I think that is what Jenna is getting at. She thinks because he was sworn in, regardless of how, he is still there as President and has to be removed according to the lawful process?
I think fraud is fraud and "fraud vitiates everything", so no matter what Biden is not President because of this.
There were counter moves put into place by Trump that are not known to the public. If Trump declared martial law and handed over power to the military then this was not an inauguration and was just a performance that means nothing. Biden has as much Presidential power as a tv show actor on the west wing.
There was the whole thing about the gun salute and how it was for a foreign dignitary and not a Presidential salute. There was so much going on then it was really hard to keep track of.
Is the Question that answers itself still a question? :)
You can't swear any legal oath to something you knowingly stole through deliberate, calculated fraud. "Fraud vitiates everything it touches" is the full SCOTUS quote from Throckmorton (1878). That includes the oath. The oath itself is thus another fraud, utterly without merit or weight.
Just my opinion, but it seems like a solid one
I agree and really it is just me thinking out loud to go through it.
I do wonder though, in 1929 the Erie Railroad case, evidently they threw out common law to bring in maritime, and all prior precedent along with it. The SCOTUS deciding on something like this may not even consider the Throckmorton case.
I saw this today in an article on Zerohedge
"The proposal would also allow a judge to void the outcome of an election if the number of fraudulent votes could change the result."
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-democrats-walk-out-house-chamber-block-voting-law?commentId=f336aa47-2e39-45ae-959e-7b2cbc6a1506
The quote is towards the bottom. If the bill passes it allows a judge to declare how much fraud is allowable. To me that is crazy but leads me to think that the 1878 Throckmorton precedent no longer stands.
I am not a lawyer and appreciate any and all feedback. I am only trying to think things through.