The piece theorizes it can be done thusly:
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election due to fraud, ordering the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent. (Marks v. Stinson, 1994)
The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in November 1993 to fill a seat that had been left vacant by the death of the previous democratic senator, and pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William G. Stinson for the spot. Stinson was named the winner, but massive fraud was later uncovered that resulted in litigation.
Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. The narrative recalls the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.
In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, a federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
Stinson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but ultimately, this was the first known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome. In January 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand.
First, the case involved a state senate seat, the election to which is controlled by the state laws of Pennsylvania and not the United States constitution.
Second, the case, as the underlying New York Times article clearly notes, involved “extraordinary conduct by the [the Democrat’s] campaign and the [election] board tainted the entirety of the absentee ballots.” There is no evidence offered up that Donald Trump engaged in massive voter fraud. “”Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery,” the judge wrote. There are no facts in evidence here.
Likewise, the case was filed in the proper time for a proper challenge. Hillary Clinton has not filed timely challenges anywhere.
This is fan fiction election pornography and highly fake news. It presents a scenario that is neither constitutional nor plausible, but only fulfills the dreams of Democrats.
It is as fake a story as any other out there. But the media is ignoring it.