US Presidential Election 2020

[Archery1969]

What happens if the president refuses to leave the White House?

Paul Quirk, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, previously told The Independent it would put law enforcement in an awkward position.

“At some point, the question would become: whose orders do law enforcement obey? Because it would ultimately become a matter of the use of force in one direction or another.”

The US constitution makes no mention of how a president should be removed if they lose an election and refuse to hand over power to their opponent. So, it is hard to say if anyone would have the appetite to send the FBI, or navy seals, or whatever law enforcement agency, storming into the West Wing to arrest a recently defeated Donald Trump.

I'm assuming the FBI have the authority to arrange his security detail, in which case they could ask them to leave?

Nobody seems to know as it’s never happened before.

But there are 35 secret service agents and 16 navy seals in the whitehouse. It’s unclear what they would do if asked to stand own. They could disobey an order either way if they considered it to be illegal. Like it or not don’t forget their job is to protect him whatever the cost to themselves.

[Derek27]

What's far more worrying is:

The sitting president carries Gold Nuclear Launch Codes on his person, printed on a credit-card sized piece of plastic nicknamed "the biscuit". While in the whitehouse he/she can send the codes without the "Nuclear Football" by using a secure fixed hub linked to the strategic defence system.

If he/she is away from the White House, they will be accompanied by a military aide who carries the "Nuclear Football" - a briefcase containing a mobile hub linked to the strategic defence system.

Once a launch has been ordered, a short code is sent to sites where crews will authenticate them before launching.

If the President were to order an attack, no one can stop it – the military will simply confirm the codes and fire.

Officers may resign, but the attack would still go ahead.

Bruce G. Blair, a former Minuteman missile-launch officer and research scholar at Princeton told Bloomberg: "The Commander-in-Chief’s power is clear: He or she has sole authority to use nuclear weapons.

You should post a link to information like that. I don't believe they'd have such a fragile setup where one person has the sole power to launch a nuclear attack.

[abgespaced]

What happened to his legal actions that he said they're starting on Monday? Seems to have gone quiet about it.

Trump's lawyer has been presenting evidence to press conferences all weekend. The MSM refuse to cover it. It doesn't surprise me that you think they have gone quiet if all you watch are the major news networks. See my previous post for an update on the legal situation.

[jamesg46]

This is where we could be heading,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

That seems to apply when there is no overall majority. I've little doubt any court action will quickly fail. What happened to his legal actions that he said they're starting on Monday? Seems to have gone quiet about it.

Filed in Pennsylvania today. If these states can't sign off on the vote then nobody will get them Electoral votes. This could be the reason why we are seeing speculative bets on Kamala and now Pence.

I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen, I'm just pointing out that it's a possibility. It could no longer be about winning the Electoral votes from the states, it could be down to stopping them from signing off on them.

It may be that the courts reject the "evidence" but we don't know that yet and this is an opportunity that may arise.

I'm not talking about it because I'm deeply in love with Trump or whatever the perceived view may be, I'm just looking for opportunities. That's what traders do isn't it? Anyone who is done in the market seems to think it's down to desperation of some sort. The market is inplay, that's all its about for me.

[Derek27]

For those of you who continue to repeat "tHeRE's nO EVidEnCE!!!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaVEppGkTQw

That's not evidence, that's a madman claiming to have evidence. None of the witnesses spoke on camera. He claims he has more than 1000 witnesses of fraud. Let's see how many testify in court, be it in person or written statement.

[Derek27]

Kayleigh's on Sky News.

[Archery1969]

What's far more worrying is:

The sitting president carries Gold Nuclear Launch Codes on his person, printed on a credit-card sized piece of plastic nicknamed "the biscuit". While in the whitehouse he/she can send the codes without the "Nuclear Football" by using a secure fixed hub linked to the strategic defence system.

If he/she is away from the White House, they will be accompanied by a military aide who carries the "Nuclear Football" - a briefcase containing a mobile hub linked to the strategic defence system.

Once a launch has been ordered, a short code is sent to sites where crews will authenticate them before launching.

If the President were to order an attack, no one can stop it – the military will simply confirm the codes and fire.

Officers may resign, but the attack would still go ahead.

Bruce G. Blair, a former Minuteman missile-launch officer and research scholar at Princeton told Bloomberg: "The Commander-in-Chief’s power is clear: He or she has sole authority to use nuclear weapons.

You should post a link to information like that. I don't believe they'd have such a fragile setup where one person has the sole power to launch a nuclear attack.

It’s on Bloomberg Derek. In theory he would consult before doing so but he doesn’t have to. Once the codes are sent only the codes are authenticated and not who sent them. If there valid then it’s assumed they should launch.

[Trader Pat]

What's far more worrying is:

The sitting president carries Gold Nuclear Launch Codes on his person, printed on a credit-card sized piece of plastic nicknamed "the biscuit". While in the whitehouse he/she can send the codes without the "Nuclear Football" by using a secure fixed hub linked to the strategic defence system.

If he/she is away from the White House, they will be accompanied by a military aide who carries the "Nuclear Football" - a briefcase containing a mobile hub linked to the strategic defence system.

Once a launch has been ordered, a short code is sent to sites where crews will authenticate them before launching.

If the President were to order an attack, no one can stop it – the military will simply confirm the codes and fire.

Officers may resign, but the attack would still go ahead.

Bruce G. Blair, a former Minuteman missile-launch officer and research scholar at Princeton told Bloomberg: "The Commander-in-Chief’s power is clear: He or she has sole authority to use nuclear weapons.

You should post a link to information like that. I don't believe they'd have such a fragile setup where one person has the sole power to launch a nuclear attack.

It’s on Bloomberg Derek. In theory he would consult before doing so but he doesn’t have to. Once the codes are sent only the codes are authenticated and not who sent them. If there valid then it’s assumed they should launch.

Delaware watch out!

[Derek27]

What happened to his legal actions that he said they're starting on Monday? Seems to have gone quiet about it.

Trump's lawyer has been presenting evidence to press conferences all weekend. The MSM refuse to cover it. It doesn't surprise me that you think they have gone quiet if all you watch are the major news networks. See my previous post for an update on the legal situation.

I watch Sky News and they gave him plenty of coverage. I'd guess they've stopped now because he's just repeating himself like a broken record. He's said enough, if he's got evidence he needs to prepare a case quickly and put it in front of a court.

[Archery1969]

Derek. The washingtonpost has a previous mention about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... Type%3Damp

[Derek27]

Derek. The washingtonpost has a previous mention about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... Type%3Damp

That is worrying, and surprising he hasn't used them yet. No wonder his opponents let him win at golf!

[Archery1969]

Derek. The washingtonpost has a previous mention about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... Type%3Damp

That is worrying, and surprising he hasn't used them yet. No wonder his opponents let him win at golf!

Joking apart it is seriously worrying.

[abgespaced]

That's not evidence

I think you'll find it most certainly is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Affidavits and testimonies are evidence. Even what he is saying is evidence if he presented it to the court. The point is, it is up to the court to decide what is admissible or not. This might help to understand:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).

The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.[2] The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case."
- from wikipedia

None of the witnesses spoke on camera. He claims he has more than 1000 witnesses of fraud. Let's see how many testify in court, be it in person or written statement.

Court isn't held via press conference nor are trials conducted via public opinion. Plus, with tensions being so high and threat of violence from the left so openly declared, who could blame witnesses for not wanting to speak out publicly?

[Trader Pat]

This thread Part 2:

https://youtu.be/XVSRm80WzZk

[Archery1969]

Derek.

It seems very clear that nobody can stop any president from launching a nuclear strike. He/She has unchecked authority to do so.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/could-a ... er-no.html