PA House Introduces a Resolution: The Election Process Shall Be Declared Improper.

[Faun]

When asked for Evidence, Rudy didn't have a single one. So don't blame it on the courts. Blame it on the Party of the Rump 3 ring Circus. And it's not a tough call on the SC, the lower courts have done exactly what they should be doing and that leaves nothing for the SC to rule on.

Now, get ready for that walk of shame that some of us did over 2 years ago.

He demonstrated the fraud. They have over 250 signed affidavits (some from actual poll workers) of fraud they witnessed. He showed how one county got 1,800 absentee ballot requests, and 2,500 were returned. Instances of people going to the poll only to be denied their right to vote because somebody filled out a mail in ballot in their name and sent it in.

Like the one from the USPS who recanted his sworn affidavit the moment it colided with scrutiny? Those affidavits may be evidence but you're not proof.

he didnt recant,,

Liar...

"I didn't specifically overhear the whole story. I just heard a part of it," Hopkins said in the recording. "And I could have missed a lot of it."​

​

"My mind probably added the rest. I understand that," he said at another point, adding: "All it is is hearsay, and that's the worst part."​

​

When an agent asked Hopkins in the recording if he would still swear to the affidavit's claim that the postmaster "was back-dating ballots," he replied: "At this point? No."​

​

​

thanks for your edited version of events,,,

LOL

Those quotes from Richard Hopkins are all in that link I posted. He recanted. He admitted what he heard is hearsay and incomplete and his own mind probably filled in some details. Even worse, when asked if he still swears to the affidavit he signed, he said, "at this point, no."

and what did he say later on about that???

"NO I didnt recant"

Yes, he said that after it was reported hd recanted. And it was reported he recanted because he admitted he didn't hear everything he claimed in his sworn affidavit; and said "at this point" he won't swear to it.

 

[Faun]

Trump himself declared that an election loss would equate to fraud.

He declared that before any votes were counted.

And so it’s unsurprising that when he loses, y’all are saying it’s a fraud. But it’s not based on facts because you can’t declare fraud before it happens.

Trump knew that mail in voting opens the election up to more fraud. Voting in person, you have to bring an ID with you and prove who you are. Mail in, anybody can send the stupid thing in.

even obama knew that mail in was unsafe,,,

Trump knew mail-in ballots were safe. He typically votes by mail himself.

different system dumbass,, and you know it,,

Nope, with the exception of Nevada, not in the battleground states. Same exact system... registered voter requests a ballot... state mails them a ballot... registered voter returns ballot.

lying about it doesnt prove it,,,

I told no lie.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump himself declared that an election loss would equate to fraud.

He declared that before any votes were counted.

And so it’s unsurprising that when he loses, y’all are saying it’s a fraud. But it’s not based on facts because you can’t declare fraud before it happens.

Trump knew that mail in voting opens the election up to more fraud. Voting in person, you have to bring an ID with you and prove who you are. Mail in, anybody can send the stupid thing in.

even obama knew that mail in was unsafe,,,

Trump knew mail-in ballots were safe. He typically votes by mail himself.

different system dumbass,, and you know it,,

Different how?

at this point if you dont know that answer I'm not going to help you,,,

I think you’re afraid to answer because there isn’t really much of a difference. In Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, you have to request a mail in ballot.

why dont you just google

why mail in voting is different than absentee ballots?

I have. That’s how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about.

if you say so,,

If you won’t, I will. Up to you. I gave you a chance to make an argument.

Your response was “google it”

 

[Coyote]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

 

[Contumacious]

When asked for Evidence, Rudy didn't have a single one. So don't blame it on the courts. Blame it on the Party of the Rump 3 ring Circus. And it's not a tough call on the SC, the lower courts have done exactly what they should be doing and that leaves nothing for the SC to rule on.

Now, get ready for that walk of shame that some of us did over 2 years ago.

He demonstrated the fraud. They have over 250 signed affidavits (some from actual poll workers) of fraud they witnessed. He showed how one county got 1,800 absentee ballot requests, and 2,500 were returned. Instances of people going to the poll only to be denied their right to vote because somebody filled out a mail in ballot in their name and sent it in.

Like the one from the USPS who recanted his sworn affidavit the moment it colided with scrutiny? Those affidavits may be evidence but you're not proof.

he didnt recant,,

Liar...

"I didn't specifically overhear the whole story. I just heard a part of it," Hopkins said in the recording. "And I could have missed a lot of it."​

​

"My mind probably added the rest. I understand that," he said at another point, adding: "All it is is hearsay, and that's the worst part."​

​

When an agent asked Hopkins in the recording if he would still swear to the affidavit's claim that the postmaster "was back-dating ballots," he replied: "At this point? No."​

​

​

thanks for your edited version of events,,,

LOL

Those quotes from Richard Hopkins are all in that link I posted. He recanted. He admitted what he heard is hearsay and incomplete and his own mind probably filled in some details. Even worse, when asked if he still swears to the affidavit he signed, he said, "at this point, no."

HE DID NOT RECANT YOU STUPID DING-A-LING


Project Veritas Releases RAW and UNEDITED Audio of 2 Hour Coercive Interrogation of USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins by Federal Agents


.

 

[Richard-H]

PA house steps in on the fraudulent election process.


In the immediate future, we will be introducing the following resolution:

...

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives—

1. Recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during the November 3, 2020 election; and

2. Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly’s authority pursuant to the United States Constitution to regulate elections; and

3. Disapproves of and disagrees with the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors; and

4. Declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute; and

5. Urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election; and

6. Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.

House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

www.legis.state.pa.us

What is truly amazing is how scared Republicans are of Trump!

It's like he's a mafia godfather!

They're just falling all over themselves to please the Don(ald)!

 

[Contumacious]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

Disagree


FRAUD is an issue of fact for a jury



The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C.§ 5 expires on December 8,2020,and the Electoral College votes for president and vice president on December 14, 2020.


How in the world can the President's Legal Team conduct discovery and then present the matter to a jury while complying with the referenced datelines ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For anybody interested, turn on OAN. They have a software expert testifying in Arizona talking about the smartmatic software and how easily it's manipulated. His claim is they found malware and algorithms that shifted votes. He also claims that the software was connected to the internet.

 

[colfax_m]

For anybody interested, turn on OAN. They have a software expert testifying in Arizona talking about the smartmatic software and how easily it's manipulated. His claim is they found malware and algorithms that shifted votes. He also claims that the software was connected to the internet.

Smartmatic software was not used in any of the contested states.

 

[iceberg]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.

 

[postman]

PA house steps in on the fraudulent election process.


In the immediate future, we will be introducing the following resolution:

...

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives—

1. Recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during the November 3, 2020 election; and

2. Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly’s authority pursuant to the United States Constitution to regulate elections; and

3. Disapproves of and disagrees with the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors; and

4. Declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute; and

5. Urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election; and

6. Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.

Why are the limiting the "fraud" to statewide elections? If there was election fraud, it started in the individual election districts, which means their results are also in dispute.

The wise thing to do if widespread fraud is suspected, is to throw out the election and start over again.

The only problem with that is, comes December 1st (tomorrow) the terms of all the members of the state house, and half the members of the state senate, would have expired. Leaving no legitimate legislature to schedule a new election.

That's a hell of a catch-22.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For anybody interested, turn on OAN. They have a software expert testifying in Arizona talking about the smartmatic software and how easily it's manipulated. His claim is they found malware and algorithms that shifted votes. He also claims that the software was connected to the internet.

Smartmatic software was not used in any of the contested states.

That's not what this Colonel is testifying to.

 

[colfax_m]

That's not what this Colonel is testifying to.

He’s far from the first person to pull this bait and switch.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Coyote]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.

Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.

 

[iceberg]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.

Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.

here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what this Colonel is testifying to.

He’s far from the first person to pull this bait and switch.

What bait and switch? You should have watched it. Very interesting. Not easy to follow unless you're into the tech stuff, but I learned a little bit about it.

What he basically said is that the Dominion system can be easily manipulated because it was connected to the internet which it shouldn't have been. How to manipulate the system is even in the owners manual. The voting patterns are very similar to what happened in Venezuela where Chavez had the system rigged for him to win. The system was created for this reason--to provide a desired outcome. Even if there was nothing nefarious about what people in our government might have done, the malware they found gave "whoever" the ability to steal passwords the administrators used.

Bottom line is the Chinese could have gotten passwords to get into the system and rig the election for Biden. What he did find is that the votes in Arizona were uploaded to Germany. While we can get subpoenas to confiscate our machines and software for evaluation, changing the votes in another country and sending them back is harder to prove since we don't have international power to confiscate their technology for examination.

What this expert testified to should be on every MSM channel in the country, but we both know that will never happen. We are using technology that's can (and was in this election) easily manipulated.

 

[Circe]

Some actually believe all of this nonsense. The cult is way too strong in some such as PoliticalChic while others are functionally brain-dead like Contumacious and Norman.

I just want to see the election decided in the House of Representatives! Come on, you know it would be fun. Mix a pitcher of Manhattans, enjoy.

 

[busybee01]

wrong again,,,

they are trying to defend against a rigged election,,,

With zero evidence presented in court.

Newsflash!

Newsmax/OAN/Epoch Times/Natural News aren't a branch of the American government, no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want them to be!

....Unconstitutionally sending out millions of mail in ballots is the epitome of a fraudulent election?

It was very clearly unconstitutional

THe court's remedy won't be to remove those votes

But a legislature can

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The legislature can stage a coup and they should be huntexd down and rece9ivde the same treatment that tyrants receive.

PA constitution says how you should send out mail in ballots.....And under what conditions

Yes it was unconstitutional under PA law

It's not federally illegal

The Pennylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you,

 

[busybee01]

When the law is specifically written to deny voters their constitutional right to have their vote counted then the Courts have the obligation to give a temporary ruling to give the Legislation the time to correct the condition. If Legislators all did their jobs, there would be no need for the Federal Courts.

Nobody was denied their right to vote. Anybody could vote that was registered to vote in that state. If you used mail in, mail it in early enough so no question could be asked of when it got there. If you were unsure of when it would get there, you vote in person instead. That's what I did, and I have several medical conditions that could be deadly to me if I catch Covid. I still voted in person because I wanted to make sure my vote counted.

A judge cannot change laws on the bench. Reread the Al Gore case. The Florida law was all ballots had to be certified in seven days. If you want a recount, fine, recount and have the ballots turned in and certified in seven days. The Florida federal judge said he didn't give a shit about what the law was. This is his buddy Al Gore, and because it's Al Gore, he gets to take all the time he needs to find enough votes to win.

When it got to the Supreme Court, they returned the decision to the Florida court asking WTF does he think he's doing? It's unconstitutional to change laws on the bench.

This is the same case and will have the same outcome when it gets to the SC.

The Supreme Court said that Bush v Gore was not a precedent. The court also stopped the count because Florida was bumping up against the safe harbor provision.