OMG

Sidney Powell suggests Jan. 6 attack was designed to give Supreme Court time to stop Biden's win https://t.co/5vY45z3nHu

— Raw Story (@RawStory) September 26, 2021

Powell said that while then-President Donald Trump was inciting a riot at the Capitol, her team was filing a "12th Amendment constitutional challenge to the process the Congress was about to use."

"Justice Alito was our circuit justice for that," she recalled. "And we were suing the vice president to follow the 12th Amendment as opposed to the Electoral College Act."

Powell alleged that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned of the lawsuit and rushed to have Congress certify the election despite the ongoing attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"Everything broke loose and she really had to speed up reconvening Congress to get the vote going before Justice Alito might have issued an injunction to stop it all, which is what should have happened," the attorney said.

I have no idea what her legal theory was, but I looked up arguments about the constitutionality of the EVCA, and they center on the statute giving Congress a bigger role in the constitutionally mandated joint session than the constitution does. 

 The constitutional analysis of the Electoral Vote Count Act is:

In this essay, and in light of the controversy that arose in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we explain the constitutional process for counting electoral votes. In short, every four years, the Twelfth Amendment requires the President of the Senate (usually the Vice President of the United States) to open certificates provided by state presidential electors and count the votes contained therein. The Constitution allows no role for Congress in this process, and thus, the provisions of the Electoral Count Act purporting to grant Congress the power, by concurrent resolution, to reject a state's electoral votes, is unconstitutional. Further, the objections raised to two states' electoral votes on January 6, 2021, were not proper within the terms of the Act, and therefore, even if Congress has the power specified in the Act, congressional action rejecting states' electoral votes would have been contrary to law. While state executive or state judicially-ordered departures from the requirements of state election laws in presidential elections might violate the federal Constitution's requirement that electors be chosen as specified by state legislatures, determining whether this has taken place is much more complicated than simply examining the language of state election statutes. We suggest that making this determination requires a careful examination of state interpretation traditions that we decline to undertake in this brief essay on the constitutional process for counting electoral votes.

I will not say if these things are right or wrong.  It's an argument, nothing more.  But the argument is that Congress can't raise objections to slates of electors, and certainly can't reject the state's electors. The argument is that Congress, like the Vice-President sitting as President of the Senate, has only a ministerial role.

Now, on Jan. 6th, the states electors were regularly presented through the results of the vote of the electoral college.  The Trump strategy was to challenge enough electoral votes to lower the threshold until Trump had more electoral votes than Biden, and a majority of those accepted by Congress, and so Pence would declare him the victor,  I have no idea what Sidney Powell's legal argument was going to be to the Supreme Court (if she even had one), but the outcome could only have been that Congress act as ministerially as Pence, and accept the results of the electoral college vote.

And Biden wins.

That she doesn't understand that calls into question whether she even had a claim ready to file with the Supreme Court in the first place (and why they would have original jurisdiction is the real question).  It also calls into question her competence as a lawyer (again).

Here's the relevant language of the 12th Amendment:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed;

Take away the EVCA (which allows for objections in the joint session) and the entire proceeding is pro forma:  the President of the Senate "shall," which is as determinative as the law gets; no wiggle room like "may" there; "in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;" there's "shall" again; and "the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall"  (a third time!) "be the President."

EOD.  QED.  If the Supremes ever declared the EVCA unconstitutional, how does that help Powell's purported client, the ex-POTUS Donald Trump?

OMG is this woman stupid.