|
Post by poutinep on May 6, 2024 2:10:49 GMT
Should trump and his goons be allowed to break laws with impunity? What laws were broken? There are no such things as 'fake electors'. They are alternate electors, and they are perfectly legal.
Once again, this is more lawfare. Liberal prosecutors and judges invent laws, or willfully misinterpret existing laws, to imprison their political opponents.
Conspiracy, fraud and forgery. They were potential electors. They weren't chosen, so then they decided to be fake electors. They tried to cast electoral votes that they were not elected to cast.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 6, 2024 2:32:36 GMT
What laws were broken? There are no such things as 'fake electors'. They are alternate electors, and they are perfectly legal.
Once again, this is more lawfare. Liberal prosecutors and judges invent laws, or willfully misinterpret existing laws, to imprison their political opponents.
Conspiracy, fraud and forgery. They were potential electors. They weren't chosen, so then they decided to be fake electors. They tried to cast electoral votes that they were not elected to cast.
Sorry but because of your lawfare tactics, conspiracy and fraud have been rendered meaningless charges. Conspiracy just means she and at least one other person planned to do something, and then took action to further the plan. Wtf is the crime? Fraud now has no definition, as differences of subjective opinion are now considered fraud by the courts, as we learned from Trump's civil trial. Wtf is the crime? As for forgery, appointing alternate electors is perfectly legal, and has been done before.
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on May 6, 2024 2:41:39 GMT
Conspiracy, fraud and forgery. They were potential electors. They weren't chosen, so then they decided to be fake electors. They tried to cast electoral votes that they were not elected to cast.
Sorry but because of your lawfare tactics, conspiracy and fraud have been rendered meaningless charges. Conspiracy just means she and at least one other person planned to do something, and then took action to further the plan. Wtf is the crime? Fraud now has no definition, as differences of subjective opinion are now considered fraud by the courts, as we learned from Trump's civil trial. Wtf is the crime? As for forgery, appointing alternate electors is perfectly legal, and has been done before. Those electors were not chosen to cast electoral votes, therefore their attempt to cast votes was illegal. They submitted fraudulent documents. 'Planned to do something' that 'something' is a crime, that is what makes it conspiracy. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 6, 2024 10:12:37 GMT
Sorry but because of your lawfare tactics, conspiracy and fraud have been rendered meaningless charges. Conspiracy just means she and at least one other person planned to do something, and then took action to further the plan. Wtf is the crime? Fraud now has no definition, as differences of subjective opinion are now considered fraud by the courts, as we learned from Trump's civil trial. Wtf is the crime? As for forgery, appointing alternate electors is perfectly legal, and has been done before. Those electors were not chosen to cast electoral votes, therefore their attempt to cast votes was illegal. They submitted fraudulent documents. 'Planned to do something' that 'something' is a crime, that is what makes it conspiracy. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. No, alternate electors are not 'fraudulent'.
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on May 6, 2024 13:21:16 GMT
Those electors were not chosen to cast electoral votes, therefore their attempt to cast votes was illegal. They submitted fraudulent documents. 'Planned to do something' that 'something' is a crime, that is what makes it conspiracy. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. No, alternate electors are not 'fraudulent'. If you sign fake documents in an attempt to cast a vote your slate of electors was not chosen to cast, that is fraudulent. You clearly don't know how the electoral system works and don't want to. you asked questions and I answered them. If you don't accept the answers by now it's because you're a partisan hack and you're not going to get it.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on May 6, 2024 14:23:11 GMT
No, alternate electors are not 'fraudulent'. If you sign fake documents in an attempt to cast a vote your slate of electors was not chosen to cast, that is fraudulent. You clearly don't know how the electoral system works and don't want to. you asked questions and I answered them. If you don't accept the answers by now it's because you're a partisan hack and you're not going to get it.
Again, it's not fraudulent. It was done in Hawaii, 1960. This is more lawfare, and persecution for crimes that don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 6, 2024 14:29:50 GMT
They were so brazen because they thought that, ultimately, they'd successfully steal the election, Trump would remain in office, and they'd all get pardons.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 6, 2024 14:33:42 GMT
What laws were broken? There are no such things as 'fake electors'. They are alternate electors, and they are perfectly legal.
Once again, this is more lawfare. Liberal prosecutors and judges invent laws, or willfully misinterpret existing laws, to imprison their political opponents.
Conspiracy, fraud and forgery. They were potential electors. They weren't chosen, so then they decided to be fake electors. They tried to cast electoral votes that they were not elected to cast.
Don't forget that, in one state (maybe Wisconsin?), they're "perfectly legitimate" plan was to hide in the state capitol overnight so they could conduct their count before the real electors showed up in the morning. Apparently, even they decided this was too crazy, so they just showed up the next day and tried blinding their way last security to get inside.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 6, 2024 14:42:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on May 6, 2024 14:47:32 GMT
If you sign fake documents in an attempt to cast a vote your slate of electors was not chosen to cast, that is fraudulent. You clearly don't know how the electoral system works and don't want to. you asked questions and I answered them. If you don't accept the answers by now it's because you're a partisan hack and you're not going to get it.
Again, it's not fraudulent. It was done in Hawaii, 1960. This is more lawfare, and persecution for crimes that don't exist. Details matter... maybe not to you, but in general.
Why Hawaii 1960 isn’t the same as Trump 2020Although the three Democratic electors in Hawaii took the same action — signing false certificates — it does not appear they ever faced similar scrutiny, in part because of what happened next. Namely, that Hawaii’s recount ultimately did reverse the state’s election outcome. Kennedy prevailed by an eyelash when the recount concluded on Dec. 28, 1960. A new governor certified the Kennedy victory and transmitted a new slate of Electoral College certificates — signed by the same three Democrats who falsely claimed to have won two weeks earlier. When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate. He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future. That newest slate “properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii,” Nixon said. One crucial feature of the 1960 episode is that a state court weighed in Dec. 30, 1960, a week before Nixon oversaw the electoral vote count. In that case brought by a group of Hawaii voters, Judge Ronald Jamieson agreed that the certified Kennedy electors were legitimate. His judgment was then affirmed by the state’s sitting governor, who certified the Democratic slate and transmitted it to Congress. Jamieson also reportedly threw out an effort by the GOP electors to scrap the entire election because of fraud allegations. The ruling wasn’t appealed and holds no binding weight, but it’s the only legal precedent for dueling Electoral College slates since the Electoral Count Act passed in 1887. Notably, Jamieson made no reference to the slate of would-be Democratic electors who cast ballots and signed certificates just weeks earlier, and it’s not clear the existence of that slate made a difference to the outcome. Nixon’s passing reference to their certificates reflects that they were received by Congress, but Nixon’s decision to obtain unanimous consent to adopt the late-arriving certified slate meant Congress never passed judgment on the legitimacy of the unofficial slate.
|
|