No, Trump Cannot Be Simply “Reinstated” As President

Sidney Powell, a former attorney for President Donald Trump, is back in the news with a prediction that Donald Trump could be”reinstated” as president. It is a mystery to me how Powell believes that Trump could be “resinstated” but the Constitution is clear: Joe Biden is our president and will remain so absent his death, incapacity, or his removal through impeachment.

Powell made her statement at a conference in Dallas that has been described as a QAnon gathering.  She stated that Trump “can simply be reinstated.”  She explained “A new inauguration date is set, and Biden is told to move out of the White House, and President Trump should be moved back in. I’m sure there’s not going to be credit for time lost, unfortunately, because the Constitution itself sets the date for inauguration, but he should definitely get the remainder of his term and make the best of it.”

The first stumbling block is that we already have a president.  Biden would be to be impeached and convicted for his removal. In such a case, Vice President Kamala Harris would be president.  Even if she were impeachment and removed, her vice president would succeed to the office. The only other process would be the 25th Amendment for a disability or incapacity.

Yahoo News/YouGov poll  last week found that 64 percent of Republicans believe that the 2020 election was “rigged and stolen from Trump.” However, even if such evidence were found, it would not make this constitutional cat walk backwards. It is not enough for a court to determine that a given state election was incorrectly called. In Florida, Democrats claimed that later tallies showed that Al Gore likely won that state. It would not matter however. George Bush was already sworn in as president.

As for the inauguration day, that is set by the  the 20th Amendment for January 20th. If a vacancies occurred, the vice president is simply sworn in as was the case with Lyndon Johnson after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The Dallas conference also featured Michael Flynn who shocked many by declaring that we should have a military coup.

 

406 thoughts on “No, Trump Cannot Be Simply “Reinstated” As President”

  1. Bush wins, Gore wins — depending on how ballots are added up

    By By Doyle McManus and Bob Drogin and Richard O’Reilly

    Nov 13, 2001 at 2:00 AM

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ballots-story.html

    Excerpt:

    If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida’s courts to finish their abortive recount of last year’s deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

    But if the recount had been conducted under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting — rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible — Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

    The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for George W. Bush — but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

    Since the study was launched, the nation’s debate over the Florida recount has cooled and Bush, whose legitimacy as president already was accepted by a large majority in January, has won massive public approval for his leadership of the war against terrorism.

    The study, a painstaking inspection of 175,010 Florida ballots that were not included in the state’s certified tally, found as many as 23,799 additional, potentially valid votes for Gore or Bush.

    The significance of these ballots depends on what standards are used to weigh their validity. Under some recount rules, Bush wins. Under others, Gore wins.

    But in almost every case, the outcome still is a virtual dead heat, with the two candidates separated by no more than a few hundred votes out of nearly 6 million cast in the state.

    –Chicago Tribune

    1. This type of proof is called searching for the variable that will give victory to whichever side one wants to win. The problem is the Gore victory scenarios are more subjective and subject to data mining of the results. Thus, there is no reasonable standard by which Gore was proven to win using objective standards set out in advance with equal bias by observers.

  2. “Even 15 years after the election, partisans on each side cherry-pick various scenarios that would have favored their candidate.” -Wade Payson-Denney, CNN

    “So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed”

    By Wade Payson-Denney, CNN

    Updated 10:06 AM EDT, Sat October 31, 2015

    https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

    Excerpt:

    After the grueling 36-day Florida recount battle, Al Gore finally conceded the presidency to George W. Bush on December 13, 2000.

    But the controversy surrounding this unprecedented election and its aftermath did not end there.

    Months after the United States Supreme Court delivered its ruling to stop the statewide hand recount in the Sunshine State, media and academic organizations conducted their own studies of the disputed ballots in Florida.

    Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race.

    Most notably in recent history, Gov. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to former Vice President Al Gore in 2000 but won the electoral vote for U.S. president. Bush won the presidency after a mandatory recount in Florida, and an additional hand recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was ruled unconstitutional. Bush led by 537 votes in official results. Pictured, Bush and his wife, Laura, celebrate after he clinched his party’s nomination in March 2000.

    This goes against the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, or took it away from Gore.

    The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.

    The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

    Even 15 years after the election, partisans on each side cherry-pick various scenarios that would have favored their candidate.

    — Wade Payson-Denney, CNN

  3. Turley wrote, “In Florida, later tallies indicated that Al Gore likely won that state.”

    This is literally a false statement and should be corrected. The data shows that Bush won Florida, period. It appears that Turley didn’t do his homework on that statement and swallowed the false narrative that the left was pushing.

    Shame on Turley for pushing a false narrative.

    1. Steve, you are not the first to note what we believe to be an error. Chappel noticed it earlier, as did I. After things settled down, the Miami Herald (left side of the aisle) was permitted to do another count and found Bush won.

      1. I sent a message to Jonathan a 4am this morning and he changed the sentence sometime after that to “In Florida, Democrats claims that later tallies showed that Al Gore likely won that state.”

        1. Steve, I was thinking about sending a message as well but never got to it. Did he provide the evidence for the later claims? I don’t think there is any evidence based on actual counts showing Gore won. There is the Miami Herald recount showing Bush won and I think one other. Democrats chose where the recounts should occur, but afterward, when everything was settled, they made additional claims. I don’t believe Turley’s revision solves the problem.

    2. “The data shows that Bush won Florida, period.”

      In Steve’s mind, maybe…, but:

      “Bush wins, Gore wins — depending on how ballots are added up”

      https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/02/no-trump-cannot-be-simply-reinstated-as-president/comment-page-3/#comment-2096349

      “Even 15 years after the election, partisans on each side cherry-pick various scenarios that would have favored their candidate.” -Wade Payson-Denney, CNN

      https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

      “Shame on Turley for pushing a false narrative.” — Steve W., in his comment

      No, “shame on” you, for being such a jerk.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, what you posted was from a partisan at CNN. You posted from him more than once. I already stated my position on the subject and I will post it here again.

        This type of proof is called searching for the variable that will give victory to whichever side one wants. The problem is the Gore victory scenarios are more subjective and subject to data mining of the results. Thus, there is no reasonable standard by which Gore was proven to win using objective standards set out in advance with equal bias by observers.

        1. No need to read past his first three words.

          Allanonymous the Stupid is talking to himself, again.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, what I wrote is true. However, you are right, but they didn’t need to read past the first 3 words. They should delete all anonymous emails without reading. But for you, Anonymous the Stupid I will repeat what I said.

            Anonymous the Stupid, what you posted was from a partisan at CNN. You posted from him more than once. I already stated my position on the subject and I will post it here again.

            This type of proof is called searching for the variable that will give victory to whichever side one wants. The problem is the Gore victory scenarios are more subjective and subject to data mining of the results. Thus, there is no reasonable standard by which Gore was proven to win using objective standards set out in advance with equal bias by observers.

            1. Again:

              No need to read past his first three words.

              Allanonymous the Stupid is talking to himself, again.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, I am advocating one better. We end anonymous labels, and that can save having to read even the first three words.

                1. You two Anonymous’s need to get a private room and work out your differences.

                  AS for what I wrote above; the actual FACTS remain unchanged, the data shows that Bush won Florida, period. Translation for the partisan challenged is, the ballots that were counted showed that Bush won, period.

                  People that want to throw in other ballots where the voters intent was not perfectly clear are full of partisan c r a p! They set a standard in Florida for recounting the ballots in question, they recounted the questionable ballots based on that standard, the winner was Bush, THE END!

                  Of course if the conditions of the standard are changed there “might” have been a different outcome but no one knows for sure; however, what might have happened based on a different standard is 100% irrelevant to the verifiably false statement that Turley made, that’s why Turley changed the statement.

                  If I’m a jerk for pointing out a verifiable false statement based on actual facts then I’m damned proud of being a jerk and anyone that chooses smears me for it can sit on their illogical BS and spin.

  4. Professor Turley likes to pretend that the US Constitution prohibits a fraudulent Presidential election from being overturned and corrected. And, consequently, he likes to attack genuine patriots and lawyers that actually possess integrity, like attorney Sidney Powell. Prof. Turley knows, but will not tell you, that the Constitution provides a way forward to correct a fraudulent Presidential election, as occurred in 2020. Article II of the Constitution has a provision to put the election of the President in hands of the U.S. House of Representatives — the people’s house — with each state getting one vote, with that vote being decided by the weighting of Party representation in each state. And, as a result of the November 3, 2020 election, with 27 states now having more Republican than Democratic Congressmen, and 20 states having more Democratic than Republican Congressmen, and three states being evenly split, the Presidential election, when the fraud is reversed, would be called for Donald J. Trump.

    1. No, the House cannot choose a president at this time. The Art 2 provision is for the date of counting the electoral votes (Jan 6), not a do-over once the president has been inaugurated.

      “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.”

      You have to read Art 2 in conjunction with the 12A, 20A, & 3 USC 5 which states in pertinent part:

      “If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution…”

      Note that after the certification by the states this count “shall be conclusive.” No legal wiggle room there.

      The end of the period where electors could be challenged was the date set for the states to certify their electors (Dec 14, 2020). This is why the Trump team was so focused on quickly getting suits heard & expedited. They failed.

      There are 2 constitutional ways to remove a seated president – impeachment/conviction & 25A. Decertification of electoral counts is not one.

      This is not to say that the state audits are not very important. The fraud & process problems must be located & state govs need to address these with voter integrity laws to minimize chance of this happening again.

  5. So, what redress would there be if in fact it was proved that there was fraud and Biden did not gain the necessary electoral votes? (Other than everyone’s head exploding). Since the Electoral College delegates were, in effect, the ones who elected Biden could they rescind their votes? And, since they were voting for a ticket wouldn’t that affect Harris as well? How could they be impeached on this, it would have to be shown that Biden and Harris knew about the fraud. Or, do they just become ineffectual for the next 3.5 years? I am not saying I think this will happen I am just wondering about the mechanics of it all given the hypothetical.

    1. Good question! Here’s one for you. Suppose the Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol made their way past the guards and got into the Senate chamber and found Pence and overwhelmed his security detail and dragged him from the building thereby interrupting the Senatorial electoral count indefinitely.
      Suppose Trump then declared that he would remain de facto president.

      In truth, that scenario came much closer to happening than the prospect of Trump finding evidence of massive voter fraud.

      What then?

      1. trump supporters did not do this. ANTIFA did and the proof is now being shown in videos and testimonies all over the internet

    2. “So, what redress would there be if in fact it was proved that there was fraud and Biden did not gain the necessary electoral votes?”

      A Federal court ordering a new election in the affected districts/states — just as a Federal court argued in Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976):

      “The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.”

      1. This is an astute comment. In support, we must recognize that Federal District Courts for years have been issuing national injunctions and the Executive Branch has complied and the Appellate Courts have not terminated the practice.
        Thus a crucial, applicable precedent has been set to extend the Courts’ power.

      2. Sorry. Read the case. Donahue was heard BEFORE the electoral count was certified for New York. It has no relevance for the current situation. See my discussion above re timing. Once the states certified their electoral count on Dec 14, 2020 it was not revocable. See 3 USC 5.

          1. So does not the Constitutional provision that only the state legislatures control elections impose a relegating or even cancellation effect on the Federal statutes?

            1. The states control the manner of choosing electors (some states do proportionally, most all or none); Congress sets the date for them to be certified & sent to Congress for counting. After the date of certification by the states they have no more control over the process.

              Art II:

              “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

              States cannot alter their elector count after the date they report them (3 USC 5).

    3. Karen: “, what redress would there be if in fact it was proved that there was fraud and Biden did not gain the necessary electoral votes?”
      ***
      I have been asking that below. The Constitution does not have a remedy for dealing with someone who has taken the Oval Office unlawfully by criminal acts. What is the difference between massive fraud and military coup? Both are criminal. Both overturn a national election. Both are invalid, like a bigamous martiage, from the outset.

      I don’t know how the audits will turn out, but if they even indicate the election was sprobably stolen the legitimacy of this presidency will be destroyed. Instead of a popular mandate they will have the Al Capone/Che Guevara mandate. Not a good look.

    4. “I am not saying I think this will happen”

      You ARE saying you think this will happen. 🙄😂😭

      This is getting out of control. There has been ZERO evidence and 60+ court cases over six months in countless state and federal courts. In order for your theory to be correct, that Donald won, you have to discredit ALL of the contests in every state. And the Republican winners of those races in AZ, PA, WI, etc. are NOT saying their races were illegitimate, are they?

      It’s either all or none and that’s how you know the GQP is lying to you.

      1. quite a few of them did because at first several appeared to have lost when they KNEW they had won. they did their own door to door audit within the first few weeks and took their FACTS of the STEAL to the local American Judge who over turned the steal right then and there.

      2. There were NO hearings on any evidence in any of those 60 Court cases. Virtually no witness who filed an affidavit testified and there was clear jurisdiction.
        They were all heard on motion, which means that the judges did not have to clear their docket to make room for the cases. If you think judges don’t make short shrift of cases that they think will impinge on their docket or have their political bias influence a motion, then I have 40 years of 1st chair trial work that says they do.

        1. No those judges were probably all intelligent, educated people who were tired of watching Trump’s ham-fisted attempts to usurp truth, justice and the American way.

          They sensed that Trump’s claims of election fraud were as big a pile of BS as 90% of the other nonsense Trump spouted, so they paid it no nevermind.

          Good for them.

          Truth, justice and the American way baby.

          IT’s back.

        2. Could be no one willing to risk perjury + process challenge minutiae relegated everything to the quickly dismissed pile.

          eb

    5. ignore this paid by demoncrat shill who lie Trump cannot be reinstated. these ludicrous foolish people are popping up all over the internet lying that the decisions made by traitors to America either in collusion or threatened by our enemies are legal and NOT biding, the whole joke of the election is now being exposed as the STEAL it IS and again everything that was done as a result of that is also illegal and NOT BINDING. this is just another ploy by the left to pretend the steal never happened and we must obey evil. 110 million and more will never bow to the will of the wicked. we know our laws too and WILL support our real legal PRESIDENT TRUMP. there is NOTHING evil can say or do that will stop TRUMP LEGALLY coming back to HIS office in D.C this year. NO evil we will NOT hear your lies

    1. Exactly. Trump stole the election from Hilary with Russian assistance, and Biden stole the election from Trump with the assistance of the mainstream media. All’s fair in love and war, and we are in a cultural war.

  6. Turley: It is not enough for a court to determine that a given state election was incorrectly called. In Florida, later tallies indicated that Al Gore likely won that state.
    ***
    I don’t think that is true. Subsequent counts by parties not friendly to Bush confirmed that Bush won. That is not a precedent for the immediate case.

    In fact, the Constitution does not provide a remedy for fraud leading to the wrong person being sworn into office. It’s a problem outside the Constitution, sort of like secession.

    There might be some guidance in English law. They had problems with kings and king pretenders and our presidency is modeled to a degree on the powers of those kings. History might guide, but this is a novel situation and likely will require a novel resolution of some sort that will not satisfy everyone and, maybe, satisfy no one.

    Meanwhile, how does Biden [or whoever holds his strings] lead the country if it is demonstrated he, or someone on his behalf, committed electoral fraud to get him elected? Will his executive orders and official appointments or foreign policy decisions have any legal validity?

    Trust in government and its decisions will vanish.

  7. Young writes:

    “Captain Bligh and his men made an incredible journey across the open sea and he was restored to command of a ship. See Nordhoff, “Men Against the Sea”. I like that analogy for President Trump. Difficult journey ending in restoration to the Oval Office. Thank you for that notion.”

    You are messing with me, right? You’re joking! Please don’t tell me you actually believe what Sidney Powell said that Trump can be reinstated to the Oval Office. Didn’t you read what Turley wrote? I was being facetious. I hope you were too.

      1. Perhaps, but Fletcher Christian did provision the boat with a modicum of food and water to give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the mutineers could have just keelhauled the lot.

        I give Trump 2 chances of being re-elected: slim and fat. Bligh had better odds!

    1. Question: If, despite all of the opposition, it turns out audits show Biden did not win enough electoral votes, then what happens?

      What if the audits show Trump won enough electoral votes to win. Then what?

      Should those events occur then I suspect it is no longer an issue for the judiciary. They had their chance and ran. But what?

      1. Good god, you are serious! I would suggest that you read again Turley’s legal analysis. Your answer can be found therein. You know, as much as some vilify me for pointing out Turley’s conflict of interests and his hypocrisy, I don’t question his legal opinions. I don’t pretend to remember all my law school education nor am I inclined to pull an all-nighter to refresh my memory now. Given his voluminous blog output and his concomitant professorial responsibilities, it would not surprise me if Turley had a clerk or two to draft his articles on which he could put his finishing touches not unlike an appeals judge. I don’t say that to disparage him in the least. I simply marvel at his ability to author 2 to 3 lengthy articles every day replete with facts and often as not legal citations.

        1. Turley’s legal opinion on this issue was a bowl of watered soup. Not much substance
          In any event when you are outside of law a legal opinion doesn’t carry much weight. Is there a Constitutional provision or even a statute that governs what is to be done if a person gains the presidency by fraud? If an immigrant becomes a citizen by fraud he can lose his citizenship. That suggests things gained by fraud can be taken away. There are many other examples. Is the presidency to be the only thing that can be retained when stolen by fraud?

          1. I don’t understand your reading of his opinion. He specified that there were only 2 ways to forcibly remove Biden: impeachment and the 25th Amendment. If either were to happen, then there is a mandated line of succession. There is no possibility of Trump being reinstated. Where Turley wants to hedge his bets, he will state there are good faith arguments on both sides, but there are none in this situation which is precisely the reason Turley stated that it was a mystery to him that Powell could state otherwise.

            I think he is being too kind to Powell. Either she has lost a few screws or she is fund-raising not unlike Trump when he begged his believers to contribute to his fraudulent campaign to uncover widespread election fraud.

            1. He specified that there were only 2 ways to forcibly remove Biden: impeachment and the 25th Amendment
              ***
              And that is true when removing a legally elected president. Neither was designed to address the situation when the office was gained by criminal acts and his ‘election’ was void from the beginning. It is similar to the difference between a divorce and an annulment.

              1. You can’t wait 3+ years for Trump to run again? Assuming he is not prosecuted in the meantime. Will you accept my challenge and declare that you will accept a jury’s guilty verdict? Or is your mind closed to any prosecution upon any grounds regardless of the evidence? Trump has stated that his is the greatest witch-hunt in the history of mankind. Do you believe him? For my part, I will accept a not guilty plea without any reservation, for I believe in our criminal justice system. Do you?

                1. it’s.: “for I believe in our criminal justice system. Do you?”

                  ***

                  No. Not after Chauvin. Not after FISA fraud. Not after two prison guards got deferred sentences for falling asleep on the job and falsifying government reports, and much more. It is a disgrace.

                  1. So Trump was correct when he said, “”I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

                    For Trumpists, Trump IS above the law. ANY prosecution is illegitimate, but if Hunter Biden is prosecuted and convicted, you would throw away the key!

                    1. I guessed you hadn’t had much experience with ratiocination. How does your peculiar conclusion derive from the earlier exchange.?. It seems untethered. I am going to guess that you are quite young. No insult. I wish I were; but clearly there are disadvantages.

                    2. You said that you did not believe in our criminal justice system. So I naturally came to the conclusion that you would not respect a jury’s verdict against Trump. If I have misjudged you, I sincerely apologize. Now, will you accept a guilty verdict for Trump after all his appeals have been exhausted? Will you trust Turley’s opinion that his trial was not a witch-hunt as Trump will claim?” For my part, I will not question the merits of a not guilty verdict. With all due respect, I would like to know where you stand as a matter of principle.

                  1. If a jury found Trump guilty of something based on proper evidence, FINE. Otherwise, I would have no respect for it. The point is that the DOJ and FBI are now conspiracies against justice

          2. Sometimes things that are taken illegally cannot be returned. If someone is murdered, nothing will return the person’s life. I bet that there are lots of historic examples of things having been stolen by fraud where the statute of limitations expires and there is no legal recourse, so the answer to your question is “no.”

            1. “Sometimes things that are taken illegally cannot be returned. If someone is murdered, nothing will return the person’s life. “

              The depth of your vision is very short Anonymous the Stupid.

              If a person kills another and takes $1M, he doesn’t get to keep the $1M. A life cannot be resurrected so we send such persons to jail or the electric chair.

                1. I may well be older than you. I’m certainly better educated (based on what you’ve said about your education, what I know about my own, and the content of our comments).

                  Neither of you have responded to the facts of what I said: if someone is murdered, nothing can return the person’s life. If the statute of limitations for fraud has expired, even money won’t be returned. Can you deal with these facts, or do you have nothing but insult?

                    1. Thanks for the insights. It’s commendable that you’re so honest about your own failings.

                    2. You still haven’t been able to bring yourself to deal with the facts I introduced. That reflects on you, not me.

                    3. “You still haven’t been able to bring yourself to deal with the facts I introduced. That reflects on you, not me.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you brought no facts to deal with. Virtually everything you said was dealt with except for those ambiguous statements meant as a defense against anyone more intelligent than you.

                  1. “I’m certainly better educated (based on what you’ve said about your education, what I know about my own, and the content of our comments).”

                    Highly doubtful. You have been partially schooled but you are not educated. Your major problem is that though you can repeat, you cannot think.

                    “Neither of you have responded to the facts of what I said: if someone is murdered, nothing can return the person’s life. “

                    If a person kills another and takes $1M, he doesn’t get to keep the $1M. A life cannot be resurrected so we send such persons to jail or the electric chair. Justice seldom makes the victim whole.

        2. Another thought. What if fraud electing Biden is discovered to have been perpetrated by hostile nations, Russia or China? Do we sit still while our enemies choose our president?

          1. If Biden conspired with a foreign power to become elected, we impeach him. What’s the problem?

            I know it seems unfair that Trump would not be re-instated under such a scenario, but the Constitution does not provide such a remedy.

            The Congress ought to pass a law making it illegal to solicit foreign intelligence upon one’s opponent as did the Clinton campaign and similarly to prohibit colluding with a foreign government intelligence agent as did Manafort by handing over sensitive election data to Kilimnik.

        3. They only hear what they want to hear. 😞

          As someone who has worked for JT, I can tell you he uses fellows/clerks/assistants on cases and projects, but his writing here and for op-eds like he’s linking to is all him.

      2. “. . . it turns out audits show Biden did not win enough electoral votes, then what happens?”

        A Federal court ordering a new election in the affected districts/states — just as a Federal court argued in Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976):

        “The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.”

      3. We are getting many hypotheticals from Ball-Less Jeff that ends with Ball-less Jeff pushing others to answer his question, what if Trump is guilty.

        I’m going to give my unwanted answer. If Trump is found guilty and his appeals lead to the same verdict, he is guilty. That is the nature of our system of justice. Of course based on some serious legal aberrations there is more to the story than just that, but guilt is guilt.

        What if it is found that the election was fraudulent and Biden didn’t get the electoral votes needed to win. Will Ball-Less Jeff accept a peaceful turnover of government from Biden to Trump?

        I am not saying that I expect anything of that to happen. I am only following the path set by Ball-Less Jeff and his interests in hypothetical demanding answers and similarly treating other posters like he treats Professor Turley.

        Ball-Less Jeff hedges his bets and make conflicting statements.

        He has already changed the question to where impeachment might be the answer. However, impeachment is not the answer if Biden had no part in fraud. If the votes went to Trump would he Biden Step down. Would Ball-Less Jeff call for Biden to turn over the government To Trump. I am waiting to hear his answer to that question.

  8. “Sidney Powell, a former attorney for President Donald Trump, is back in the news with a prediction that Donald Trump could be”reinstated” as president.”

    Trump apparently believes Powell. What an idiot.

    “Two days ago, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported that Donald Trump “has been telling a number of people he’s in contact with that he expects he will get reinstated by August.” In response, many figures on the right inserted their fingers into their ears and started screaming about fake news. Instead, they should have listened — because Haberman’s reporting was correct. I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer …”
    nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right

    1. If someone took the Oval Office by force could they keep it? No. How different is it when it is taken by conspiracy and fraud?

          1. Clearly you have an active imagination.

            Maybe you weren’t paying attention when the instructor discussed how the verb tense can affect whether the condition is false vs. unknown.

            1. Show me how the verb tense determines whether a condition was true or false beginning a sentence with ‘if’.

      1. Are you talking about Trump’s conspiracy with Russian hackers who lied about Hillary Clinton on social media, using sensitive insider polling data about where to target such lies so that they could sway voters in districts whose support for her was soft, and which could affect the Electoral College? That’s the only PROVEN fraud and wrongful conduct here. Biden’s win was CERTIFIED by every state, after multiple recounts, re-recounts, signature matches and 60+ failed court challenges. That’s still not enough for you Trumpsters.

        Trump is and has always been a crook, liar, fraud and personal failure. He has no leadership skills, and that was proven by his disastrous fake “presidency”. Americans never wanted him to begin with and never approved of him, but yet you Trumpsters he won reelection believe because your exalted leader says Americans really did love him and voted for him in a landslide, despite the polls. That’s not a mistake of fact–that is delusional. Sidney Powell is either a criminal or is in desperate need of psychiatric help–maybe both. Mike Lindell has a history of crack cocaine and heroin addiction, so he has an addictive personality and obvious psychiatric issues that caused him to turn to drugs to ease whatever emotional suffering he was going through. He may have overcome the physical addiction, but people who have been addicted to drugs, alcohol or other substances often replace one addiction with another, like gambling, sex, pornography or an obsession of one kind or another, like an obsessive attraction to someone who doesn’t return their interest. In Lindell’s case, it is an obsession with the false belief that Trump really won. There’s no proof, but facts can’t shake his obsession, because it’s not driven by facts–it’s driven by his addictive personality. This obsession is just as toxic as his addiction to drugs, and will hurt him in the long-run, too. Lindell will likely end up losing his business over Trump. He is in serious need of help.Trump could help him by admitting that he really lost. He owes that to Lindell. Don’t hold your breath.

        But, what I still don’t understand is the passionate defense of Trump and firmly-rooted belief by his disciples that the election was stolen, based on absolutely NO evidence, and despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Please explain it to me. Why don’t facts matter, and why do you believe Trump, who is a chronic, habitual liar? Is it just an advanced case of wishful thinking? Don’t you realize that the majority of Americans have always found Trump to be odious, arrogant, unqualified, flashy and not presidential material, and that’s why most of us didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020?

        Does it occur to you how dangerous it is that so many people are willing to believe a proven liar and are also willing to accept the false claim that an election was stolen, despite nothing but the claims of a delusional liar, and despite the fact that each and every Secretary of State, including Republican ones, certified the results? You don’t believe the pre-election polls, either, that predicted his loss. What about 4 years of less than 50% approval ratings? All lies? Could any facts sway you? Explain it to me because I don’t understand.

        1. The Russia collusion “investigation” was a hoax, a lie, a fraud. What do you not understand?

          1. The Mueller investigation was based on EVIDENCE: documents, depositions, sworn testimony, valid proof. Why don’t you understand this? Is it because Hannity tells you it was a hoax? Hillary was predicted to win, and she DID win the popular vote. Russian hackers DID obtain information from Trump’s campaign on where to target lies about her in districts that could sway the Electoral College, and that DID happen. It was proven by valid evidence. Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton trafficks in children and drinks their blood?

            1. You are aware, aren’t you, that you are lied to by the media that intentionally and knowingly spreads disinformation and misinformation to benefit one political party?

              Here’s a short tally of just some of the fake news spread to you by CNN and MSNBC:

              Russia hoax

              Kavanaugh is a rapist

              Smolett was assaulted

              Very fine people on both sides

              Covington kids

              Drinking bleach

              Feeding koi fish edited video

              1. Benjamin,

                Why don’t you get some popcorn and go back to watching your favorite videos on the Top Ten Kitten Videos We Can’t Stop Watching website, hmmm?

                1. Actually I’m sitting at M______ K_____ listening to Seinfeld talk about riding his bike along the beach at the Hamptons, and going to Wimbledown. He’s with his buddy Spike who wrote the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld.

                  Way more entertaining.

                  You on the other hand should try to live a decent life and maybe you will come back reincarnated as someone with a brain and integrity.

                  1. I’m Jerry’s assistant and also a political junkie. I see you there at the Malibu Kitchen all the time. You have perfect hair, btw.

        2. The actual “Big Lie” is pretending that the massive statistical anomalies from the 2020 vote don’t exist.

            1. “Where did you hear about this? ”

              Anon @ 1:30 PM heard it from his hero; he heard it from Trump — the guy who thinks that he’ll be back in the WH by August.

          1. At what point does it become clear there is voter fraud going on and that it’s going on right now in Arizona? That Trump began by trying to force the Ukrainians to put out manufactured dirt on Biden and that ever since the election Republican legislatures have been paving the way for enormous fraud in ’22 and ’24? It’s right out in the open…

            But no, look for under that chair over there!!!

            eb

        3. Damn you are good Natacha.

          To quote Rooster Cogburn from the original True Grit: “She reminds me of me.”

          As correct about all of this as you are, don’t waste your breath.

          It’s pearls before swine.

          Mike Lindell is a perfect example of the kind of morally and ethically flawed person who follows Trump.

          He appeals to the tired, the poor, the sad, the lost and the not so bright.

          And there is a lot of that in America these days, apparently.

          Can I be your Boris?

                    1. Atta boy, that’s the Ben we all like to f#$ with around here. Keep up the good work.

                      “Name-dropping is used to position oneself within a social hierarchy. It is often used to create a sense of superiority by raising one’s status. By implying (or directly asserting) a connection to people of high status, the name-dropper hopes to raise their own social status to a level closer to that of those whose names they have dropped, and thus elevate themselves above, or into, present company.”

      1. Uh oh, the New York Times is meant for those who believe in truth, justice and the American way and have an IQ over 120.

        You might want to cancel your prescription.

        1. If it is only for people with an IQ over 120 you should cancel your ‘prescription’ too . The word is ‘subscription’..

          1. I know, I was making fun of Jackie, the receptionist when I worked at SURFER Magazine.

            She used to say “prescription” instead of “subscription” and we would make fun of her.

            She also gave me one of my noms de plums.

            One time she said a guy was a real “Mason Thorpe.”

            I said “What? A Mason Thorpe? Who’s Mason Thorpe?”

            She said, “You know a miso-gin-ist.”

            I said “Misanthrope.”

            She said, “Yeah, that’s what I said, Mason Thorpe.”

            So now I write some things under Mason Thorpe.

            1. Have you ever tried using Denny Dimwit as a nom de plume? He used to be a very popular character in the comic strips.

  9. The problem is that if Biden took office by what amounts to a coup then we are already outside the bounds of the Constitution and many probably are not disposed to wait on mincing and parsing by a Court that has already shown cowardly on this issue.

    Reposted.

    1. Stop talking macho and bring it, baby! The jails are already filled with insurrectionists, but we’ll make room for more.

      1. LOL Jeff………..I laugh out loud when I hear you “progressives” use your favorite new word: ” Insurrectionist”.
        You all sound so proud of your new find……and it has so many syllables! LOL
        Unfortunately, the term doesn’t apply to your conservative nemeses, but then neither does the term racist, which you hurl liberally.

        1. Hello Cindy,

          Glad to make your acquaintance. I trust we are not going to get off on the wrong foot. If you don’t like “insurrectionists,” I’ll take it back. Would you prefer “rioters”? If that is too rough, how about “Trumpists?” Does that work? It’s a minor point, but I’m willing to accommodate you.

          However, I resent your accusing me of calling people racists. I do not do so. Trumpists are not racists. I had this same discussion with Prairie Rose in which I stated that I may call certain statements “racist,” but never an individual. I believe that genuine racists will self-identify as they have no reservations in expressing their racism openly. I see no advantage of accusing a person of being a racist when they may not be. To do so will serve only to enrage the person and to polarize the debate. Prairie Rose can back me up on this if she happens to read this.

          I’ll thank you in advance for your apology.

          1. “I’ll thank you in advance for your apology.”

            Cindy , I see you have met Ball-Less Jeff. Just picture listening to him talk in his high pitched voice.

            1. Anonymous………I’m sure he is excitedly awaiting the day that he’s old enough to wear long pants…😉

    2. “IF Biden took office by what amounts to a coup THEN” you should present evidence of it.

      IF you cannot present evidence, THEN we do not have any reason to treat it as true.

      1. You are Anonymous and nobody cares what nobody in particular treats as true.

        In any event you suffer from the same disability as Natch and BM. You read past my ‘if’ and did not recognize a hypothetical If I could prove anything to you I wouldn’t bother.

        1. LOL that you bizarrely believe that “You read past my ‘if’ and did not recognize a hypothetical.” I literally quoted and capitalized your IF and THEN to highlight that it was a hypothetical.

          “If I could prove anything to you …”

          But you can’t. Once again, you post a conditional claim with a false condition.

          1. It’s “Young.”

            I ignore him or her, for the most part, based on similar past experiences.

          2. Can you prove the ‘condition’ is false?

            In any event a hypothetical is not posited as either true or false. It is a way of war gaming many different things to try to see different potential outcomes. When you discover a desired outcome then you may try to make the conditionals actual to control events. You are severely limiting yourself if you can’t or won’t learn to think that way.

            If you are dogmatic then even good gaming won’t help. The Japanese wargamed their attack on Midway and one team slipped in unexpected conditions and the Japanese lost that game. They thought that that could not be. Of course they would win. The untenable, unproven condition turned out to be true in actual combat and the Japanese lost 4 carriers and the war turned around on them.

            It is a little disturbing that so many posting here lack such flexibility in thinking. I suppose it is down to our failing schools.

            Mespo knows what I am talking about. Any practicing lawyer likely does.

Leave a Reply