Georgia Indictment

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

Then by all means, show your work. I mean you don't have any integrity or credibility so unfortunately I cannot take your word for it.

Not:
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

That's a heavy penalty. Hopefully you can provide some heavy evidence.......

Pick up a book.

I have one here, it's on the Constitution.

Do you have a recommendation?

A heavy book.

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3000Hard

Loads of times, only difference is trump should be relieved that he will receive a fair trial.

Then by all means, show your work. I mean you don't have any integrity or credibility so unfortunately I cannot take your word for it.

Not:
Stabbed a bunch of times.
Hung by the neck.
Beheaded via guillotine.
Placed in front of a Firing squad.

That's a heavy penalty. Hopefully you can provide some heavy evidence.......

Pick up a book.

I have one here, it's on the Constitution.

Do you have a recommendation?

A heavy book.

What an enlightening conversation....

a reply to: matafuchs

They've got a hearing next week.

Roger Stone has been identified in a VIDEO as part of the fraudulent elector scheme. In the video taken on 11/5/2020, Stone dictated the plan to an associate. The video was shot by Danish documentarian Chirstoffer Guildbrandsen

Video clip of Stone

Fani Willis needs to add him to the indictment.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Thanks.

He describes exactly how alternate electors work.

Which has been used to effect in the past.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

You're going to have to point out the incriminating part because I sure don't see it.

a reply to: JinMI

When have alternate electors ever been used, let alone in the way described by Stone?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

When have alternate electors ever been used, let alone in the way described by Stone?

1960 regarding Hawaii and Nixon.

Glad you used the correct terminology.

a reply to: JinMI

Please point out the similarities between what occurred in Hawaii 1960 and what Trump tried to do. You what? Better yet, why don't you provide the pertinent parts of the court case that occurred in 1961 over this situation that sets precedent for what Trump did.

And just to top things off, why don't you provide what Nixon said regarding precedent in this situation.

a reply to: Threadbare

Do you deny that alternate electors have been used in the past?

Lets start there.

If the answer is yes, then there is legal precedent.

If there was any historical indication that you would actually go all the way down the road of diving into the facts, I'd happily oblige.

You've been proven to be dishonest and bad faithed. So you go on and post some sources and we can see where it goes.

a reply to: JinMI

Technically no. While Hawaii had two slates of electors that year, it only ever had one official slate of electors at a time. If the governor of Hawaii had never certified the Dems slate of electors after the recount reversed yet elections initial results, Nixon would've used the GOP's slate of electors, even though they lost the state, because it was the official slate that had been certified and submitted.

One key difference between Hawaii and Trump is that the Parties in Hawaii did not forge official documents and submit them in an attempt to change the official results of the election.

a reply to: Threadbare

Who did they submit them to? I cannot seem to find exactly who it was because all electoral votes go through the State Government and not the Federal Government until certified at a state level so....they were not really able to accomplish anything. This is not like trying to pass a bad check or a counterfeit bill like GF did.

a reply to: Threadbare

While Hawaii had two slates of electors that year, it only ever had one official slate of electors at a time.

Ok, so my point is made clearly then. And yours made moot. Were the alternate electors counted? No, they were not.

One key difference between Hawaii and Trump is that the Parties in Hawaii did not forge official documents and submit them in an attempt to change the official results of the election.

Arguably, neither did Trumps team. The allegations state that, without evidence. Yet you push it as fact.

More dishonesty.

a reply to: matafuchs

Congress and the Archivist.

This is what I don't understand. If the state didn't certify the electors, where's the crime?

Are they charging Trump because they could have been certified by the state?

Even so, would it have been a crime if the state did certify the electors?

Is Trump being charged for what could have happened, but didn't happen?

Since when do we charge people for "could have", but didn't?

a reply to: SourGrapes

Since when do we charge people for "could have", but didn't?

Since when they get to make up the rules as they go along and there's no one to stop them.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
This is what I don't understand. If the state didn't certify the electors, where's the crime?

Are they charging Trump because they could have been certified by the state?

Even so, would it have been a crime if the state did certify the electors?

Is Trump being charged for what could have happened, but didn't happen?

Since when do we charge people for "could have", but didn't?

All the charges are predicated upon being orange I think...

a reply to: SourGrapes

They're being charged because the documents they submitted to Congress stated they were the certified and duly elected electors for those states. That's fraud. Then they tried to pressure Pence into using those slates of electors instead of the official ones even though they weren't certified. That's a straight up attempt to overturn the election while disenfranchising the voters of those states.

a reply to: Threadbare

More allegations sans factual evidence.


...please.

a reply to: Threadbare

So some people who sent things that meant nothing and I am sure were not delivered were coercing the Vice President of the United States to stop the election?

Is that your final answer?

If anyone takes 3 minutes and googles this # they learn it is all bull#. Seriously. They could send anything but it would mean absolutely nothing. It is not like they kidnapped the actual people, forged the certs and then made sure they were sent to the US SecState.

What kind of Scoooooby Doooby Doooooo ending are we actually talking about here?