Basically, if we manage to get back both the House and Senate by comfortable margins, do you think Trump might consider getting into the House Speaker position and reclaiming the presidency through impeachment of both the POTUS and VP?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
I do, but only because of Military precedent and some indications I've heard up the grapevine.
Basically, the theory goes that so long as there is "a legal avenue to remedy the 2020 election" the Military refuses to act.
Which means, Trump would have to sustain punitive damages for having been disenfranchised in the 2020 election. The only punitive damages that stand out as certain are that, past January 20th, 2023 when Biden will have passed his 2nd year in the Office of President therefore fulfilling a "full term," is the only instance in which Trump can file definite punitive damages, as that term served by another should have been rightfully his.
So long as Trump is theoretically able to secure the seat of the Presidency before January 20th, 2023 through completely legal legislative actions, the Military isn't obligated to act in any capacity because the functional outcome of the Government Process is still attainable, which would be the fulfillment of a second Trump term in office (minimum 2 years), regardless of how much time was spent during that term in legal disputes while a fraudulently elected candidate was installed.
Later suits (getting back those lost 2 years) can then be brought, but only once he can prove he was disenfranchised fraudulently and the first batch of remedies rewarded and the case definitively settled.
Thanks for explaining all of this. I wonder, though, if the "legal remedy" is open to interpretation. Meaning, a remedy by a legal means that does not actually remedy the first cause and hold people accountable is more of a workaround than a remedy. Do you happen to have a feel as to how those up the grapevine are truly interpreting that phrase?
Also, I posted earlier today about a possible macro perspective and it could fit well with what you're saying about January 2023. If you have a mind to, check this out and let me know what you think. https://greatawakening.win/p/141FJuv4pk/what-i-am-hoping-for-a-theory-ab/
Legal remedies are pretty cut and dry.
Remedies can only be granted if the Court is the only option for restitution as well as your sought compensation is tangible.
For example, if you have a priceless artifact that someone breaks and you sue them, the Court can absolutely claim that since the artifact is priceless and has no definitive value and the defendant cannot replace it with an exact copy, that the Court has no obligation to hear the case at all.
Furthermore, if the legal remedy can be obtained outside the Court, then they will demand you pursue that avenue first, and dismiss your case.
The terms of legal remedy, in Trump's case, he can still, technically, fully attain all that for which he was disenfranchised, so long as he can be sworn in before another "President" has "completed a term in office."
Therefore, outside of the Courts, he has an avenue for becoming President, rightly.
Then, if 2023 comes along, and he still isn't President, then he has sustained definite damage and can seek remedy.
Of course, the Court system is rigged, so this won't work. He'd keep appealing and they'd keep dismissing based on standing and saying he filed too late, as the damage is already done. Judges always hide behind the subjective terminology here.
Only then, after his AND the voters' cases are appealed and dismissed, would the Military then see absolutely no legal option to overturn the fraudulent election. Only they would they be required to act in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
That is, unless, international courts raise stink first and other crimes of the election are exposed. Then we have a clear Constitutional Crisis, which goes into Devolution and the Law of War Manual.
So... Trump does have a legal avenue to become Speaker and then President in order to remedy his own damages. As long as it is "possible" then the Military can act, but is not obligated to act, until an event occurs where the standard functions of Government are obstructed. That's called a Failed State and is a form of a Constitutional Crisis.