Article II, § 1 does vest in state legislatures the power to determine the manner of selecting presidential electors. Pennsylvania's legislature has done that, having determined long ago that voters get to choose the electors in a general popular election.
That election took place on November 7, and was certified on November 21, in the manner specified by the legislature by statute.
Article II, § 1 does not allow the legislature to change the rules after the election is held. To the contrary, it makes the opposite clear:
Congress has done exactly that. It said Election Day was the first Tuesday in November. The time for the legislature to direct the manner for choosing electors is over, because the time for choosing them is over, and Pennsylvania has, in fact, chosen them.
And your statements about the election having been compromised are mendacious. The Trump campaign has has plenty of opportunities to present evidence of such supposed corruption to the courts.
Yesterday's opinion by an all-Republican panel US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit—an opinion written by a Trump appointee—made clear that the Trump campaign, at least in court, has disclaimed assertions of fraud. It quotes @RudyGiuliani on that:
.@SenMastriano, you're a disgrace, and beneath contempt.
* has had
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Some people say, show yuh evidence. I say, don't show yuh evidence. Keep that to yuhself. You know, keep that—that's fuh you. That's so you know you have a case. You don't need to prove it to anyone else,okay—that's fuh you."
"All ya have to do is get some, like, loose leaf printuh papuh, okay, and just get some binduhs and then just like hold that up and just say "Affidavits! Signed affidavits!" And that's as good as gold."
"The othuh thing I always like to say is, don't use spell check, because those squiggly lines, they—they'll—they just jittuh and they distract you. So just turn the spell check off."
So, in its case seeking access to grand jury material for a possible (re)impeachment of @realDonaldTrump, which was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court on December 2, ...
... the House Judiciary Committee moved to postpone the argument on the ground that @JoeBiden is going to be president on January 20, and, in essence, it would be a waste of time to argue the case, since Trump won't be there to impeach any more.
The Justice Department, which brought the case to SCOTUS (it lost below), basically responded by saying ...🤷🏻♂️: Your Honors, do whatever you want.
@ktumulty Theoretically possible but highly unlikely.
@ktumulty If they pulled this stuff in front of a judge, they'd have a decent chance of having their licenses suspended or pulled altogether.
@ktumulty But statements to the public are less often the subject of discipline, and they present the question of whether the statements are protected by the First Amendment.