What about dominion glitches?

Dmax95 said:

---

What about dominion glitches?

---

Saw the video. The count on the tweet is wrong but going by what he said that's over 77,000 illegal votes that they apparently found. I don't know what all has been submitted but hopefully they have a convincing enough trail... those numbers seem pretty exact but not sure how they collected that. The dominion thing is with Powell. Giuliani's team is going the quickest easiest route which is all of the illegal ballots and methods used. The dominion stuff will take longer but will be icing on the cake if she succeeds. None the less that wouldn't be in time for the electoral college and congress IMO so their approach is right.

Really you waiting on my thoughts? Well here you go. Don't watch this fake news. Go to main stream media and stop having your brain corrupted by a corrupt President and his cronies.
Your welcome

Judges turn back claims by Trump and his allies in six states as the president's legal effort founders

"The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen," added Hagedorn, who is part of the court's conservative wing. "Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. . . . This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread."

Six more L's yesterday with more conservative judges penning scathing opinions decrying the lack of legal merits of the Trump team arguments before the courts.

This is either the most elaborate and coordinated legal slow-play ever or the worst legal campaign ever.

Any time now with the actual evidence, people, any time.

Civilized said:

---

Judges turn back claims by Trump and his allies in six states as the president's legal effort founders

"The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen," added Hagedorn, who is part of the court's conservative wing. "Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. . . . This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread."

Six more L's yesterday with more conservative judges penning scathing opinions decrying the lack of legal merits of the Trump team arguments before the courts.

This is either the most elaborate and coordinated legal slow-play ever or the worst legal campaign ever.

Any time now with the actual evidence, people, any time.

---

That just 1/4 of the story. Listen to this live show for the other part of the news:

Heading how fb lawsuits are coming at some point for election interference and was just thinking. Regardless if implicated or not what if the NRA was doing this. Would anyone ? Such.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8834885/Mark-Zuckerberg-Priscilla-Chan-donate-additional-100M-election-administrators.html

Are you a lawyer?

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

Do people realize what's going on?

If you call the police and no one responded would you have issues? If you had info on a crime
regardless if true or not would is it the job of the police to not at least investigated? If you and 10000 other friends of yours had sworn affidavits , testimony, and evidence but the judge and the police/legal system wouldn't investigate it thoroughly would that be right?

What's going on here should make any person with a pulse pissed off. If Biden had the same complaints he should be ignored? No. He has a legal right to a fair responses.

I understand these places don't want to open the door for investigations cause they're going to look like idiots if done. The amount of issues is mind boggling. The system is the problem. Left or right shouldn't matter when the voting system is and has been broken for a long while.

The systems job is to investigate claims like such. It shouldn't be political period. Oh you're a dem in a republican precinct sorry we the legal/judicial system can't help you? No no no. Shouldn't be acceptable. Put down the political biases and ask yourselves how would it feel it the shoe was on your foot. Judge isn't the jury here. Just like the police shouldnt be either on small cases. Just blowing this all off is dangerous.

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

---

You agree that would be dangerous, right? Absolutely!

Would you agree that people have different views (for instance, what's flimsy or not)?

Also, legal precedence should be used and typically not be overturned if a subject is considered settled, right?

Dmax95 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

You can't convict someone or win a case off of affadavits only. There must be physical evidence that corroborates sworn testimony. It's time for this evidence to be produced as Trump is almost out of time.
You say there should be an investigation. Well these claims have been investigated, found lacking substance, and that's why judges have thrown these claims out. Trump is getting his day in court over and over. He's just losing

IseWolf22 said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

You can't convict someone or win a case off of affadavits only. There must be physical evidence that corroborates sworn testimony. It's time for this evidence to be produced as Trump is almost out of time.
You say there should be an investigation. Well these claims have been investigated, found lacking substance, and that's why judges have thrown these claims out. Trump is getting his day in court over and over. He's just losing

---

What physical evidence would suffice?

• People are telling their stories of eyewitness accounts
• Lawyers are providing facts of people that shouldn't have voted
• So much more, just read the fake "Fake News"

For the life of me, I'm not sure what else they can provide to get people here to realize something happened. So much evidence that State legislators are now calling for de-certifications... are they just buying into hype like I am?

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The Supreme Court should never look at whether a path is dangerous or not. They should look at the law and rule accordingly. Justices, with either political leanings are typically weak! You judge based on the law!!!

---

You rule based on the law, evidence, and past legal precedent. You don't view every case as a new interpretation of the law, unbound by previous precedent.

The judge is saying that he's being asked to invoke unprecedented judicial power that's not supported by evidence.

You agree that would be dangerous, right?

The public is not served by justices wielding massive and unprecedented judicial power based on "flimsy evidence," as this justice describes, right?

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

You can't convict someone or win a case off of affadavits only. There must be physical evidence that corroborates sworn testimony. It's time for this evidence to be produced as Trump is almost out of time.
You say there should be an investigation. Well these claims have been investigated, found lacking substance, and that's why judges have thrown these claims out. Trump is getting his day in court over and over. He's just losing

---

There's tons of physical evidence. VIDEOS/PICTURES included with the evidence. Have you seen the Georgia videos. Many of the people testifying have pictures on their phones of everything they witnessed. Try harder to poke a hole in this.

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

They reviewed all this within a few days of submission. okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Maybe some of the evidence is crap, you don't throw out the whole case.

caryking said:

---

What physical evidence would suffice?

• People are telling their stories of eyewitness accounts
• Lawyers are providing facts of people that shouldn't have voted
• So much more, just read the fake "Fake News"

For the life of me, I'm not sure what else they can provide to get people here to realize something happened. So much evidence that State legislators are now calling for de-certifications...

---

This issue is getting litigated in a court of law, not on Twitter.

I'll believe something happened if/when judges and justices start believing something happened.

Anyone can pound a podium with microphones in their face and say "something happened." Being willing to do that in a courtroom is a much higher bar to clear, and evidently not nearly enough good evidence is being produced or all these cases wouldn't have been dismissed.

I'm equally mystified as you, just for a much different reason.

Using your words, "For the life of me, I'm not sure what else judges can say to get people here to realize nothing out of the ordinary happened."

How many lawsuits getting dismissed will it take? We're already in the thirties I think. 50? 100?

Chain of custody......some of these polling stations it was broken constantly. How votes could have been tampered with if no ones following the rules. I worked at a bank back in the day. You can't move a single dollar( 100's of hands likely touching these votes/no problems? )bill from anywhere in the bank to somewhere else without two signatures. Think about the stories of votes/boxes of votes being processed like there are a manufacturing warehouse not a bank. It was only a matter of time before this got so bad. Trump or not. The process itself is the problem. Thank god someones trying to expose it.


Then throw in software issues....it's a mountain of issues.

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

Dmax95 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

They reviewed all this within a few days of submission. okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Maybe some of the evidence is crap, you don't throw out the whole case.

---

So now judges are complicit?

First it was bipartisan election commissions being complicit in the crime and cover-up.

Then that was extended to Republican secretaries of state and CISA, including its republican leader.

Now state and federal judges are helping cover up all this awesome evidence of electoral fraud?

Say that out loud and see if it computes.

Isn't a much more likely, and reasonable explanation that lots of people hate Trump and he just plain got beat?

the continuances got dismissed all over. Not all the cases have been. So clearly you missing some relevant evidence. You've shown your negligence to me. Won't waste my time. Be good

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

What physical evidence would suffice?

• People are telling their stories of eyewitness accounts
• Lawyers are providing facts of people that shouldn't have voted
• So much more, just read the fake "Fake News"

For the life of me, I'm not sure what else they can provide to get people here to realize something happened. So much evidence that State legislators are now calling for de-certifications...

---

This issue is getting litigated in a court of law, not on Twitter.

I'll believe something happened if/when judges and justices start believing something happened.

Anyone can pound a podium with microphones in their face and say "something happened." Being willing to do that in a courtroom is a much higher bar to clear, and evidently not nearly enough good evidence is being produced or all these cases wouldn't have been dismissed.

I'm equally mystified as you, just for a much different reason.

Using your words, "For the life of me, I'm not sure what else judges can say to get people here to realize nothing out of the ordinary happened."

How many lawsuits getting dismissed will it take? We're already in the thirties I think. 50? 100?

---

See my last post...

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

They reviewed all this within a few days of submission. okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Maybe some of the evidence is crap, you don't throw out the whole case.

---

So now judges are complicit?

First it was bipartisan election commissions being complicit in the crime and cover-up.

Then that was extended to Republican secretaries of state and CISA, including its republican leader.

Now state and federal judges are helping cover up all this awesome evidence of electoral fraud?

Say that out loud and see if it computes.

Isn't a much more likely, and reasonable explanation that lots of people hate Trump and he just plain got beat?

---

Yeah the system has been broken for decades, each election both sides complain yet nothing happens. We're done...you're not changing my mind, i'm not changing yours...cheers

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

---

Are judges partaking in this same ignorance?

This isn't getting litigated on IPS. It's getting litigated in courts and Trump's losing over and over and over.

If the evidence is compelling, Trump would be something other than 1-37 or something, right? Maybe not winning them all but something much better than what he's doing. Right?!?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

---

Are judges partaking in this same ignorance?

This isn't getting litigated on IPS. It's getting litigated in courts and Trump's losing over and over and over.

If the evidence is compelling, Trump would be something other than 1-37 or something, right? Maybe not winning them all but something much better than what he's doing. Right?!?

---

Civ, you really are showing your ignorance. You talk a big game; however, if the legislature's in each state calls back certifications, and send the electors they want, game over! This doesn't need a single win in court to happen and Trump could win the election.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is going to change the outcome. What I am saying is that things are happening in all swing states that's making things very interesting.

Yep, Georgia State legislature going to use the Florida Precedent to invalidate the election potentially. Then the legislative body can determine the electors themselves. That's how I perceived such from the hearings.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

---

Are judges partaking in this same ignorance?

This isn't getting litigated on IPS. It's getting litigated in courts and Trump's losing over and over and over.

If the evidence is compelling, Trump would be something other than 1-37 or something, right? Maybe not winning them all but something much better than what he's doing. Right?!?

---

Civ, you really are showing your ignorance. You talk a big game; however, if the legislature's in each state calls back certifications, and send the electors they want, game over! This doesn't need a single win in court to happen and Trump could win the election.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is going to change the outcome. What I am saying is that things are happening in all swing states that's making things very interesting.

---

We've got much different definitions of ignorant.

What I think is ignorant is getting handed about 40 L's in courts but being like "Yeah but, the legislatures..."

Legislatures aren't overriding the vote of the people that's been upheld over and over and over again by the courts and sending different electors.

How proudly undemocratic would that be? None of us should want that.

People voted. Courts are upholding the vote. And legislators then go off the reservation and send different electors? Now THAT would be ignorant.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

---

Are judges partaking in this same ignorance?

This isn't getting litigated on IPS. It's getting litigated in courts and Trump's losing over and over and over.

If the evidence is compelling, Trump would be something other than 1-37 or something, right? Maybe not winning them all but something much better than what he's doing. Right?!?

---

Civ, you really are showing your ignorance. You talk a big game; however, if the legislature's in each state calls back certifications, and send the electors they want, game over! This doesn't need a single win in court to happen and Trump could win the election.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is going to change the outcome. What I am saying is that things are happening in all swing states that's making things very interesting.

---

We've got much different definitions of ignorant.

What I think is ignorant is getting handed about 40 L's in courts but being like "Yeah but, the legislatures..."

Legislatures aren't overriding the vote of the people that's been upheld over and over and over again by the courts and sending different electors.

How proudly undemocratic would that be? None of us should want that.

People voted. Courts are upholding the vote. And legislators then go off the reservation and send different electors? Now THAT would be ignorant.

---

Ignorant - lacking knowledge

Legislatures aren't overriding the vote of the people that's been upheld over and over and over again by the courts and sending different electors. The constitution clearly says the state legislature sets the rules for election law, not courts.

How proudly undemocratic would that be? None of us should want that. Actually, that is Democratic. Electors vote based on who is sent by the legislature.

People voted. Courts are upholding the vote. And legislators then go off the reservation and send different electors? Now THAT would be ignorant. Actually, that might be exactly what happens and it's completely constitutional.

I think what most people are not following is the states are convening because they have seen the evidence and are now wanting to take control. You may not like it, but it's happening. Not that any of it's going to ultimately change the outcome; but, it's happening...

https://populist.press/safe-harbor-deadline-for-electors-not-constitutional-does-not-apply-to-disputed-states/

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dmax95 said:

---

What's flimsy about it? Sworn testimony/evidence/affidavits subject to Perjury, and a felony????

---

What's flimsy about it? A lot, evidently.

The judges heard that evidence and thought it was BS. That determination was baked into their decision and opinion.

---

According to the US Constitution, the legislature has the power of the election. So, some of the judges are saying no to the complaints; however, the states are saying something completely opposite...

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

I think this narrative, by the liberals here, is weak at best. The evidence is everywhere and people are taking notice. I'm not saying this will change the outcome; however, I am saying: you can keep saying no evidence, but you are slowly heading towards a minority position, if not already...

As I have said all along... none of this may ever matter in the final outcome. Putting your head in the sand keeping up the narrative of "no evidence" is showing a sign of ignorance. Look around, you may find a new world of information.

---

Are judges partaking in this same ignorance?

This isn't getting litigated on IPS. It's getting litigated in courts and Trump's losing over and over and over.

If the evidence is compelling, Trump would be something other than 1-37 or something, right? Maybe not winning them all but something much better than what he's doing. Right?!?

---

Civ, you really are showing your ignorance. You talk a big game; however, if the legislature's in each state calls back certifications, and send the electors they want, game over! This doesn't need a single win in court to happen and Trump could win the election.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is going to change the outcome. What I am saying is that things are happening in all swing states that's making things very interesting.

---

We've got much different definitions of ignorant.

What I think is ignorant is getting handed about 40 L's in courts but being like "Yeah but, the legislatures..."

Legislatures aren't overriding the vote of the people that's been upheld over and over and over again by the courts and sending different electors.

How proudly undemocratic would that be? None of us should want that.

People voted. Courts are upholding the vote. And legislators then go off the reservation and send different electors? Now THAT would be ignorant.

---

Ignorant - lacking knowledge

Legislatures aren't overriding the vote of the people that's been upheld over and over and over again by the courts and sending different electors. The constitution clearly says the state legislature sets the rules for election law, not courts.

How proudly undemocratic would that be? None of us should want that. Actually, that is Democratic. Electors vote based on who is sent by the legislature.

People voted. Courts are upholding the vote. And legislators then go off the reservation and send different electors? Now THAT would be ignorant. Actually, that might be exactly what happens and it's completely constitutional.

I think what most people are not following is the states are convening because they have seen the evidence and are now wanting to take control. You may not like it, but it's happening. Not that any of it's going to ultimately change the outcome; but, it's happening...

---

https://populist.press/trump-campaign-lawyers-dont-need-courts-for-trump-to-win/