Are you a BAMN never Trumper? And is that a bad thing?

a reply to: network dude

Here are the charges:
Count 1 – Conspiracy to Commit Forgery: the false electors worked together and with other people to forge a certificate of votes with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 750.248.
Counts 2 and 3 – Forgery: the false electors each forged a certificate of votes with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. MCL § 750.248.
Count 4 – Conspiracy to Commit Uttering and Publishing: the false electors worked together and with other people to publicly claim that the forged certificates were real with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 750.249.
Count 5 – Uttering and Publishing: the false electors each publicly claimed that the forged certificates were real with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. MCL § 750.249.
Count 6 – Conspiracy to Commit Election Law Forgery: the false electors worked together and with other people to make, file or publish a false document with the intent to defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $1,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 168.933a.
Counts 7 and 8 – Election Law Forgery: the false electors each made, filed, or otherwise published a false document with the intent to defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $1,000 fine. MCL § 168.933a.

The charges stem from the fact that they were not duly elected per Michigan Election Laws, and the rest of the actions were also not in compliance with Michigan Election laws.

BAMN is the worst thing that ever happened to the Republic, and I think will destroy the republic.

These fanatics that think they have to destroy the republic to save it will be the end of civilization as we know it.

I don't care if it's coming from the left or right, its wrong they should be called out and shamed publicly at every opportunity.

To some of the comments I have seen... get a grip we are not a theocracy, we are not going to be a theocracy and we have never been a theocracy. It would have been a genuine concern right up there with the new king concerns post revolution, that possibility sailed away a long time ago.

Also looking at Christians and thinking they are the ones to do it is lunacy. more than 1 other religion is much much more likely to push for a theocracy, christians have kinda learned to get a long with people they morally disagree with.

a reply to: network dude

Don't go crazy and theocratic with it, and I'm good.

Of course the left made him. That's a statement of the obvious. But he played a major hand in keeping himself relevant through a deliberate perpetuation of a stolen election/Corrupt DOJ narrative with his endless failed challenges.. Difference being, I think that is grasping at anything BS and others believe otherwise.

I think he knows he lost and deliberately uses it to form a party that is more paranoid and angry than it should be. And make it centered around him. His endless challenges were the show, and he played himself to 1) still direct the GOP by proxy (see McCarthy Out Johnson in) 2) be defacto candidate in waiting for 2024.

I think he is business shady. He plays a form of hardball that skirts legal lines . Covers his ass and does it within federal oversight regulations like a wall street person.

And I think he does it so much barely legal shady crap it makes Feds want to go after him.

I think he lives on the divide amplified by his detractors because he's so good at thriving in that flame thread like social environment.

a reply to: Degradation33

Can you explain something to me?

You understand the socialist/marxist revolution. You understand how somebody like Trump became POTUS. You really seem to have a firm grasp on the dichotomy of how justice is being applied.

So when you say things like:

And I think he does it so much shady crap it makes Feds want to go after him.

I'm at a loss. Because from my perspective, these can't be congruent or consistent.

a reply to: JinMI

... because he does the things they spend their careers going after. He skirts legality and does things they want to get him for.

I am picturing this scene in The Wolf of Wallstreet.



He's old money, but I get the feeling Feds have a thing out for him because he falls into this category for them.

They want him so badly to be a Grenedan.

a reply to: Degradation33

So you don't approve of the disparate treatment, you're just identifying it?


Do you have any concerns that it's only Trump they are going after out of all the congress cretins and executives who play the same games? Some much better than Trump.



I've stated before, if ALL politicians were held to the same legal standard as Trump, I'd be all for it.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: network dude

Here are the charges:
Count 1 – Conspiracy to Commit Forgery: the false electors worked together and with other people to forge a certificate of votes with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 750.248.
Counts 2 and 3 – Forgery: the false electors each forged a certificate of votes with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. MCL § 750.248.
Count 4 – Conspiracy to Commit Uttering and Publishing: the false electors worked together and with other people to publicly claim that the forged certificates were real with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 750.249.
Count 5 – Uttering and Publishing: the false electors each publicly claimed that the forged certificates were real with the intent to injure or defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. MCL § 750.249.
Count 6 – Conspiracy to Commit Election Law Forgery: the false electors worked together and with other people to make, file or publish a false document with the intent to defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $1,000 fine. MCL § 750.157a and MCL § 168.933a.
Counts 7 and 8 – Election Law Forgery: the false electors each made, filed, or otherwise published a false document with the intent to defraud. This crime is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $1,000 fine. MCL § 168.933a.

The charges stem from the fact that they were not duly elected per Michigan Election Laws, and the rest of the actions were also not in compliance with Michigan Election laws.

now where did trump sign off on any of that himself directly?

a reply to: JinMI

I'll make an exception for the special treatment.

I think they have deemed him a threat to national security for how he uses misinformation as a way to promote himself.

He has instigated a culture where my mere suggesting he used misinformation will cause the reactions I masochistically enjoy in these threads.

What if the "stolen election" was actually fair? What if my suggestion that he used a falsehood is founded in reality? Then it's calling him out, and the divide is being caused by his followers being unable to admit he is wrong and lost.

To counter, do you accept a world where that was a fair election?

The implications there is using anything to sew seeds that the election was undemocratic is the undemocratic move. So if it was fair, he subverts democracy saying it wasn't.

From that perspective, he's earned being singled out.

You just have to dare to uphold the fairness of the election, which I do, hence my criticism of him.

Had he gracefully lost, and just kept himself relevant without the deliberate subversion (in my mind) I'd have no criticism of Trump whatsoever. My criticism of him has solidified under Biden and his refusal to accept the outcome.

It's classless. To refuse to lose, and then make the country belligerent in sympathy to your cause is threatening.

Where I obviously differ is, I don't think that even false opinions should be censored. I'm here playing, and support your right to call me a blind liberal over what I just said.

But I'm gonna f*cking say it.

The election was fair. His deliberate playing of the country to those ends constitutes a subversion of democracy more than the one he tells people has happened.

And that projection move seems his goto.

And I've read all evidence. Over 2500000 questionable ballots, and evidence used, and I agree with the judges opinion on the rulings. They were made to seem damning. But they reminded me of the logical problems where there is not enough information to conclude definitively.

He didn't win one. Conservative judges that voted for him shot him down.

But that's my criticism. It's personal stupid crap like that.

a reply to: Degradation33

I think they have deemed him a threat to national security for how he uses misinformation as a way to promote himself.

He has instigated a culture where my mere suggesting he used misinformation will cause the reactions I masochistically enjoy in these threads.

Ok, instead of listing all of the plotiticians who do this, can you list the ones who don't? Should be rather short if it exists.

Where I obviously differ, is I don't think that even false opinions should be censored. I'm here playing, and support your right to call me a blind liberal over what I just said.

But I'm gonna f*cking say it.

Your ability to articulate an opinion makes me think that you aren't just some blind liberal. If I thought that, you'd not get any concessions or such a verbose response from me.

The election was fair. His deliberate playing the country to those ends constitutes a subversion of democracy more than the one he accuses people is happened.

And that projection move seems his goto.

Yet cases have been ongoing since the 2020 election. A new one even dropped today in Maricopa County, AZ. So while you may have made up your mind, can you blame us with this information in hand?

He didn't win one. Conservative judges that voted for him shot him down.

This is also false, not only was he party to but a few, he did win a few. Even Politifact had to admit it.

So now that some of the water is less murky, does this change your opinion at all?

a reply to: yuppa

He was recorded in a phone call, and an attorney for his campaign was present when they signed the false certificate.

In a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, the then-president told two fellow Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the state election's certification, saying they would look "terrible" and must "fight for our country," according to recordings of the call reviewed by the Michigan news outlet.

Link

Tony Zammit, the former communications director for the Michigan Republican Party, testified that it was Shawn Flynn, a lawyer for Trump's campaign in Michigan, who gaveled in the meeting in the basement of party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020.

Link

And:

So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification.

The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN.

Link

Also:

On the eve of the state certifications, those close to the Trump campaign, including a senior adviser, raised concerns in a group chat about the fake electors plan, prosecutors say. Informed of what was going on, Trump’s deputy campaign manager said the scheme had “morphed into a crazy play.”

A senior adviser to the president, who is not identified, texted, “Certifying illegal votes.” The campaign officials in the chat refused to sign a statement about the plan, because none of them could “stand by it,” the prosecutors allege.

Link

This should get you started.

a reply to: JinMI

It think it says 2/3 of the time he was allowed to present evidence. He had enough for a case. It ended up like 81/82 failed in the end.

There was one. That's what I'm reading. It was almost universally rejected in the end.

My honest opinion:

Disillusionment. The bubble popped in 2016 was returned 4 years later. I saw it as a natural balance. I thought Trump stood no chance in hell, like Vegas did, but that was proven wrong without needing to be stolen.

Inverse. Trump lost by the a near identical margin he won in the electoral college. And the popular vote a second time. Which is why popular votes aren't used.

81 million votes and only about 450k decided it. In Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

There was a time when that would be called, "Biden won the key swing states" not "evil democrats made sure Trump lost the key swing states".

That he can lose in the same shocking unexpected way, by nearly the same electoral margin, and have it be called a victory one way and fraud the other way, is the double standard most troubling.

It's like a refusal to accept Republicans dominated in person voting and democrats dominated mail in votes to slightly greater degree.

Anyway, people have him for a better 4 years. He gets to give a speech at the Summer Olympiad. How many leaders get to do that?

Sorry.. I made the comparison.

a reply to: Degradation33

Trump wasn't party to a vast majority of those cases, as I pointed out.

It's like a refusal to accept Republicans dominated in person voting and democrats dominated mail in votes to slightly greater degree.

Even where they were illegal. Which is why the Texas v Pennsylvania case was important...but SCOTUS punted.

Yet, I don't think any of the facts are going to change your opinion.

a reply to: frogs453

Hearsay reigns supreme 🤤

a reply to: JinMI

Probably not.

I don't think they needed to steal it. I think once The Old Guard Republicans turned on Trump in Biden Endorsements he got enough swing votes the flip key states. Trump lost the same battles he won the first time. Like in those 4 states.

I think it feeds the notion the Biden voters never existed, when in fact they do, in silent shame for their swing vote.

Just watch McConnell. Who was happy as hell with Biden until Biden reminded him why he was a Democrat. There are several like him.

It was a temporary revulsion, that while not needing to be stolen, was perpetuated quite deliberately. He was railroaded from Covid through Floyd through Election day.

There was enough to make people ACTUALLY vote for Biden. And I look to The prominent Biden endorsements from Republicans as evidence of that Temporary haze enveloped a sizeable enough part of The GOP and Independent voters for that outcome to happen legitimately.

a reply to: Degradation33

Have you ever verified that your vote counted for exactly who you voted for?

a reply to: JinMI

No, but I haven't voted since 2016 on the president question. And I voted for Johnson in 2016.

But direct me to the AZ database and I'll search my name there.

I bizarrely got a Jury Summons in 2020 in Arizona despite not registering in AZ for an Election since 2008 and living there since 2009. It went to my parents house despite that not being my address for several years.

If I have voted in Arizona at any point since i left I will flip my opinion.

a reply to: Degradation33

I'm just saying, do you find it curious that the information about your very personal habits and actions aren't readily available for you but are available to...others?

a reply to: JinMI

How so? Like government agencies and googlecide? 1984 with more data storage than Orwell anticipated? Or just voting records you're not aware of?

Anonymity is actually really hard to maintain. Emails are connected to Google maps are connected to cloud photos are connected to the loss of privacy.

I can THINK I'm insulated with my misleading BS on higher risk sites, but I'm sure there's far less anonymity than I'd like to believe. Even with the tricks.

I feel they use the very personal habits to dissuade MAGA, I will give you that. By "exposing" the memos to watch MAGA they are effectively making people try to reconsider their vocal affiliations. Or know that their very personal affiliations are now cataloged when they are shared. They want that out there. Like they want to see who it triggers most.

I see a lot more of that than impropreity with my votes. And more of that SINCE Jan 6th. Almost all after Jan 6th. Like it's a repercussive action in fear of MAGA rising up in a united conviction of a fraudulent government, while using logic that may be faulty.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Degradation33

If Trump ever tries to subvert the Constitution, then his followers will turn on him like a pack of rabid weasels.
......

No you won't. He already did try to subvert the Constitution when he tried multiple illegal ways to stay in power after the Constitutionally mandated process for selecting the POTUS told him he lost. And you're fine with that. You make up all kinds of excuses and denials and try to normalize that behavior--"It was Nancy Pelosi"--"It was Antifa"--"It was the FBI". It was anyone EXCEPT the guy who called the Governor of Georgia and pressured him to make up fake election results. Anyone EXCEPT the guy who told his co-conspiritors in the swing states to make up fake slates of electors. Anyone EXCEPT the guy who scheduled a protest rally on the day that the joint session of Congress was scheduled to certify his loss. Anyone EXCEPT the guy who sat on his ass in the Oval Office throwing ketchup against the wall pissed off that the Secret Service wouldn't let him personally lead his mob to the Capitol building. No other POTUS in the history of the country has ever attempted that kind of crap. None.

Fortunately for the country, Trump is no more competent at running a coup than he was at running a Casino or Trump University. But he tried.

Own it.

I'm prepared to own it, but I first have to understand it.

Can you explain what actions Trump took that tried to "subvert the Constitution", with an example or two? What I saw was him giving a speech, complaining about being robbed of the vote, and getting a whole bunch of people good and pissed off by complaining about being robbed of the vote. Now that might be childish, it might be petty, and he could be totally wrong, and 81 million people really did vote for a dementia patient. But unless he met with groups of people and convinced them to go to the capitol and beat up some cops, and thought that would overturn the election, I just don't get it. I asked you this in another thread, but you usually don't have the stones to back up your words. We will see if this time is different.

LOL, it wasn't.

a reply to: frogs453

HE wanted to look into the electors himself to see if there was no scamming going on. I dont see the words make up electors in that. I know Gore had that done if i remember correctly too,until the supreme court stepped in and decided whose electors were proper.