For Everyone That Keeps Asking if an Election Has Ever Been Overturned Due To Fraud! YES, and as Recent as 1994! Eyes on Pennsylvania!
(www.baltimoresun.com)
? B O O M ! ?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
It's really annoying that these posts keep getting made. None of this matters.
Biden has been sworn in, so the 2020 election is final. It. Is. Final.
Never has a federal election been overturned. The closest that it has ever gotten is an order for a new election.
It is possible that SCOTUS could order a new election for President and Vice-President, but there is no precedent to that, The thing I find problematic is that the Constitution specifies that a term is four years and the only way to remove a sitting President is impeachment.
So that leaves only these options:
The Speaker of The House resigns, and the House votes in Donald Trump as the new Speaker. Congress then impeaches, convicts, and removes Biden and Harris; making Trump President.
Harris resigns, Biden appoints Donald Trump Vice-President, then he also resigns. Trump would then become President.
Biden nominates Trump to a cabinet position, the Senate confirms him. Congress impeaches, convicts, and removes Biden, then pass a bill stating that Donald Trump is the federal official who will act as President. Acting-President Pelosi signs the bill into law and she remains Speaker of the House.
The long shot: SCOTUS orders a new Election, and Trump wins if there is no fraud. He's then sworn in on January 20, 2022.
That's it. There is no other option. No re-instatement. No overturning of the election.
Simply, fraud vitiates everything.
I see this stated often, but I get the impression that the people repeating it don't understand what it means.
It doesn't mean that fraud undoes everything. It means that fraud spoils everything. Meaning that confirmation of fraud would make Biden the President that cheated to get elected... But he would still be President.
Nope. Read the SCoTUS ruling again.
Nope. I have a solid grasp of the opinion. It is like I said. Fraud does not undo anything; it spoils it. The opinion states explicitly that the point isn't to go back and undo all of the fraud; just that because fraud was present, relief may be granted.
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 - Supreme Court 1878
It may be hard to comprehend because of the language used. So to summarize what that means: The court may set aside it's own judgements and grant relief (i.e. a redo or new trial) if fraud was used to obtain the judgement, but the court will not attempt to adjudicate the actual fraud.