Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

I don't think that's right Cary. It's not if they "think" the election was in error.

It's if courts find that it was.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the alternate electors were in place in case the recount went Kennedy's way, which it did.

Trump was appointing alternate electors in states where the outcome was not in doubt. There were no more recounts going on or pending litigation that had the opportunity to overturn the election result in that state so there was no legitimate or legally justifiable need for alternate electors.

This article explained the nuances pretty well.

Why Trump's 'fake electors' in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

I don't think that's right Cary. It's not if they "think" the election was in error.

It's if courts find that it was.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the alternate electors were in place in case the recount went Kennedy's way, which it did.

Trump was appointing alternate electors in states where the outcome was not in doubt. There were no more recounts going on or pending litigation that had the opportunity to overturn the election result in that state so there was no legitimate or legally justifiable need for alternate electors.

This article explained the nuances pretty well.

Why Trump's 'fake electors' in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

---

So, what is this person saying about the other State electors?

At the end of this all, Trump left the White House and Biden went in. January 6th, Pence was asked to send the electors back to the State, for 10 days, to review. Pence didn't and the rest is history.

If a person feels wronged, they will try and do everything possible, until they can't, to fix the wrong. It really is that simple! Unfortunately, the TDS crowd, including a few here, just want to create a narrative that isn't there.

Trump still thinks the election was rigged. There is nothing wrong with that! My hunch tells me, Trump has more info about this than you and I, as well as most in the media.

---

It's unclear what Trump thinks. None of us know that.

Rationally it makes zero sense for him to continue to think the election was rigged given the unanimous court outcomes against him in the various cases he brought disputing the fairness of the election, and also the results of the multiple investigations he himself commissioned with private investigators to research the same.

What is clear is that Trump thinks it's advantageous to claim the election was rigged no matter what the evidence shows.

And at this point, he's clearly pot-committed to the strategy. Can you envision there being any amount of evidence to the contrary that would lead to Trump issuing a mea culpa and admitting he was wrong about election-rigging? No chance of that ever happening.

He's the captain of the sinking election-rigging ship and there is zero chance he gets in a life boat.

When the ship goes down, he's going down with it.

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

I don't think that's right Cary. It's not if they "think" the election was in error.

It's if courts find that it was.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the alternate electors were in place in case the recount went Kennedy's way, which it did.

Trump was appointing alternate electors in states where the outcome was not in doubt. There were no more recounts going on or pending litigation that had the opportunity to overturn the election result in that state so there was no legitimate or legally justifiable need for alternate electors.

This article explained the nuances pretty well.

Why Trump's 'fake electors' in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

---

So, what is this person saying about the other State electors?

At the end of this all, Trump left the White House and Biden went in. January 6th, Pence was asked to send the electors back to the State, for 10 days, to review. Pence didn't and the rest is history.

If a person feels wronged, they will try and do everything possible, until they can't, to fix the wrong. It really is that simple! Unfortunately, the TDS crowd, including a few here, just want to create a narrative that isn't there.

Trump still thinks the election was rigged. There is nothing wrong with that! My hunch tells me, Trump has more info about this than you and I, as well as most in the media.

---

It's unclear what Trump thinks. None of us know that.

Rationally it makes zero sense for him to continue to think the election was rigged given the unanimous court outcomes against him in the various cases he brought disputing the fairness of the election, and also the results of the multiple investigations he himself commissioned with private investigators to research the same.

What is clear is that Trump thinks it's advantageous to claim the election was rigged no matter what the evidence shows.

And at this point, he's clearly pot-committed to the strategy. Can you envision there being any amount of evidence to the contrary that would lead to Trump issuing a mea culpa and admitting he was wrong about election-rigging? No chance of that ever happening.

He's the captain of the sinking election-rigging ship and there is zero chance he gets in a life boat.

When the ship goes down, he's going down with it.

---

Civilized said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

I don't think that's right Cary. It's not if they "think" the election was in error.

It's if courts find that it was.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the alternate electors were in place in case the recount went Kennedy's way, which it did.

Trump was appointing alternate electors in states where the outcome was not in doubt. There were no more recounts going on or pending litigation that had the opportunity to overturn the election result in that state so there was no legitimate or legally justifiable need for alternate electors.

This article explained the nuances pretty well.

Why Trump's 'fake electors' in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

---

So, what is this person saying about the other State electors?

At the end of this all, Trump left the White House and Biden went in. January 6th, Pence was asked to send the electors back to the State, for 10 days, to review. Pence didn't and the rest is history.

If a person feels wronged, they will try and do everything possible, until they can't, to fix the wrong. It really is that simple! Unfortunately, the TDS crowd, including a few here, just want to create a narrative that isn't there.

Trump still thinks the election was rigged. There is nothing wrong with that! My hunch tells me, Trump has more info about this than you and I, as well as most in the media.

---

It's unclear what Trump thinks. None of us know that.

Rationally it makes zero sense for him to continue to think the election was rigged given the unanimous court outcomes against him in the various cases he brought disputing the fairness of the election, and also the results of the multiple investigations he himself commissioned with private investigators to research the same.

What is clear is that Trump thinks it's advantageous to claim the election was rigged no matter what the evidence shows.

And at this point, he's clearly pot-committed to the strategy. Can you envision there being any amount of evidence to the contrary that would lead to Trump issuing a mea culpa and admitting he was wrong about election-rigging? No chance of that ever happening.

He's the captain of the sinking election-rigging ship and there is zero chance he gets in a life boat.

When the ship goes down, he's going down with it.

---

You and your MARXIST allies have been saying the same damn thing for 7 years.

And.. the fact that you support a pathetic excuse for a party says more about who you are as a person than anything President Trump has been accused of.

Men can have babies right???

Women can have *****es right???

It's ok for trannies to swing their Richards in front of kids right???

Minor attracted people are ok and should be accepted in society right??

Teachers should be allowed to persuade kids to change genders without the parents knowledge right???

GTFOH with your constant line of BS....

---

Completely irrelevant, zero-value post.

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know about the particulars of the Georgia case, but given the public statements of the Fulton County DA, I'd have to agree that any legal process would and should take place outside of Atlanta. Where? Tough call. Dems would cry foul if it were to occur anywhere north of Atlanta, particularly in Marjorie Taylor-Greene territory. Perhaps Augusta would possibly be the best shot for a balanced, fair trial, assuming that there is any actual real substance to the indictments.

---

That case is the biggest sham of them all! Just go listen to the phone call. That is an absolute legal maneuvering to suggest Trump ever asked The GA SOS to turn the election.

---

What were the fake electors for then?

---

Civ, the State Legislature has the right to send in a different set of electors. In fact, Vice President Nixon accepted another set of electors, when he lost to Kennedy.

Even if they send in those electors, that doesn't mean they are fake. They are executing their legal right to do so.

Let's say Trump asked them to send in another set of electors…. The State legislature has to do it. When they do, it's a legal process for them to do so…. Trump can't make any State Legislators do such a thing. Also, if he demanded it, and they did, it's still not illegal. Why? Because they are allowed to do it…

---

Yeah, no they don't. Why would it be legal to send in a different set of electors as an alternative to the legitimate electors that are acting on the results of the state's election? That makes zero sense, and that's not what happened in the Kennedy election in 1960.

Trump's alternative electoral voters were not the result of close races or ongoing recounts.

Trump and his allies, by contrast, attempted to appoint electors in 7 states where he had undeniably lost. Trump lost New Mexico, one of the states involved in the scheme, by nearly 100,000 votes. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit proved that President Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes.

Trump's team did not submit the alternate slates of electors solely because they believed a state would flip in their favor, as was the case with the alternative Kennedy electors in 1960. According to the Associated Press, pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 13, 2020 email that the plan "'was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states.' Instead, he wrote, 'the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.'"

The purpose of Kennedy's alternative voters was simply in the case of a recount coming down in their favor, as it was a legitimate possibility. The goal of appointing alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election was not just in the hopes that one of Trump's bogus lawsuits would result in any of the states flipping, but was also part of the plan to strong-arm former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to interfere with the certification of Biden's victory.

Trump's efforts were fueled by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at altering the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a 300-page report on Trump's efforts in Georgia, the Brookings Institute wrote:

Under the circumstances of the Hawaii case, the court-ordered recount created reasonable uncertainty surrounding the vote total, giving the Kennedy electors a justifiable basis for their production of a Kennedy certificate. The 2020 Georgia Trump electors, on the other hand, met and signed their fraudulent certificate on December 14, seven days after the results were recertified (for the second time) on December 7. The governora Republicannever approved. Furthermore, Nixon's initial Hawaii victory (pre-recount) was by a margin of only 141 votes, well within the realm of possibility for a recount to change; Biden's total, on the other hand, was more than 12,000 votes (and still 11,779 after the second recount) greater than Trump's, a much larger advantage unlikely to be overturned by a recount. [Brookings Institute, 11/2022]

---

To answer your first paragraph, In McPherson vs. Blacker, The US Supreme Court has ruled that the state legislature's authority to determine whom the state's electors shall be as "plenary", meaning absolute, and if the legislature feels the need, they have the constitutional authority to select electors by means other than the popular vote. Which is why leftists have been waging war against the College of Electors the past several decades.

---

Why would the legislature feel the need to select alternate electors by means other than the populate vote, especially when the popular vote goes decidedly towards one candidate?

And no, that isn't the left's beef with the electoral college. Their beef is that the EC system allow for what they see as tyranny of the minority. I disagree with the left on this beef. We don't need California and New York to decide nearly every election; we need the Pres to have some amount of geographically distributed support.

---

The answer is simple! The legislature would send an alternative set of electors, if they think the election was in error. Example: the courts ruled on certain waivers for COVID, that was never in the legislature passed laws. So, they say: hey, this is an unjust election because of the courts interfering the state law.

The courts should never have granted these waivers. It's not in their jurisdiction. They should have said: this needs to be taken up by the legislature, according to the constitution.

It's really no different than the Roe vs Wade ruling. The courts created a defacto law…. It's just not the way it's supposed to work. If a plaintiff petitions the court, the court should only rule based in the law, as written.

---

I don't think that's right Cary. It's not if they "think" the election was in error.

It's if courts find that it was.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the alternate electors were in place in case the recount went Kennedy's way, which it did.

Trump was appointing alternate electors in states where the outcome was not in doubt. There were no more recounts going on or pending litigation that had the opportunity to overturn the election result in that state so there was no legitimate or legally justifiable need for alternate electors.

This article explained the nuances pretty well.

Why Trump's 'fake electors' in Pennsylvania are likely to avoid prosecution

Quote:

---

Why is the situation in Pennsylvania different from other states?

Unlike in other states, Pennsylvania's fake electors added an important caveat to the certificate that likely shielded them from the consequences faced by their counterparts in Michigan.
Pennsylvania's certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors."

"The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet," DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote.

In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless.
"So I as well as others said, 'Fine, but let's make the document reflect that,'" he said. "So we're a bit different from the other folks."

New Mexico's fake electors included similar language in their certificate.

The fake electors' certificate in Michigan, where they were recently charged with forgery and other related crimes, included no such caveat.

Gerow echoed DeMarco's remarks that the concern among the electors was that they would be viewed as trying to put themselves forward as the legitimately appointed electors.

"But rather, we were the placeholders in case any court found that the Biden slate that claimed to be the legitimate slate was not," he said. "I've been a lawyer for almost 45 years, and I think what we did was totally appropriate."

---

---

So, what is this person saying about the other State electors?

At the end of this all, Trump left the White House and Biden went in. January 6th, Pence was asked to send the electors back to the State, for 10 days, to review. Pence didn't and the rest is history.

If a person feels wronged, they will try and do everything possible, until they can't, to fix the wrong. It really is that simple! Unfortunately, the TDS crowd, including a few here, just want to create a narrative that isn't there.

Trump still thinks the election was rigged. There is nothing wrong with that! My hunch tells me, Trump has more info about this than you and I, as well as most in the media.

---

It's unclear what Trump thinks. None of us know that.

Rationally it makes zero sense for him to continue to think the election was rigged given the unanimous court outcomes against him in the various cases he brought disputing the fairness of the election, and also the results of the multiple investigations he himself commissioned with private investigators to research the same.

What is clear is that Trump thinks it's advantageous to claim the election was rigged no matter what the evidence shows.

And at this point, he's clearly pot-committed to the strategy. Can you envision there being any amount of evidence to the contrary that would lead to Trump issuing a mea culpa and admitting he was wrong about election-rigging? No chance of that ever happening.

He's the captain of the sinking election-rigging ship and there is zero chance he gets in a life boat.

When the ship goes down, he's going down with it.

---

This is classic Civ…

It's unclear what Trump thinks. None of us know that.

Then…

What is clear is that Trump thinks it's advantageous…

Civ, you have no idea what Trump thinks! I don't either! All we can do is base things in what he says…. That said, Civ… you must have some mighty fine tarot cards…

And your rational is for Trump to quit thinking the way he has, regarding the election…. He probably want take your advice!

---

We know there's been no evidence produced of consequential fraud.

And we know he keeps claiming the election was rigged.

I think it's fairly safe to assume he thinks doing so is politically advantageous, no?

If he didn't think it was, why would he keep doing it?

---

Two stars (Hokie and the ever elusive, "I haven't been on the WC in 3 months" - Chem)... and then when all the stars come out to prance around you get TrafficMan, RainbowWolf and whoever else they can send the telepathy signal to...

Civ's a good debater... but unfortunately, the product that he's trying to sell is rotten and reeks, so all he can do is continue with Trump. Trump. Trump!

---

In fairness Storm, this thread is about Trump so I'm not sure what else we're supposed to talk about here.

---

I NEED THIS SHIRT!!!!!!

https://t.co/tQNaf66iIO

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) August 24, 2023

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

Wrong!!

It was only a speculative question, by Tucker. He prefaced it by saying… they've come after you with multiple attempts to get you disqualified. That's true!! What's next? Try and kill you?

BTW, Civ, you're so naive to think he was talking about Dem's only…

---

Werewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

Wrong!!

It was only a speculative question, by Tucker. He prefaced it by saying… they've come after you with multiple attempts to get you disqualified. That's true!! What's next? Try and kill you?

BTW, Civ, you're so naive to think he was talking about Dem's only…

---

Amusing and sad at the same time to think this is R vrs D. What is underway is so much greater than this.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Relax man, just making a joke.

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

So he has been threatened? It's not hypothetical? He is a victim of death threats?

Boy, that doesn't sound like false victimhood or wildly hypothetical. But, I don't have TDS either.

Then there dozens of articles that Trump is a threat to democracy and must be stopped. Man, sounds like there is an agenda there.

And lol at using "perp" & however many political charges far left DAs have levied against him as some type of legitimate argument. Talk about getting played like a fiddle.

Is there anyone, other than far leftists like yourself, that support the political charges against Trump? The entire reason is to keep him from being elected again. It is not because of criminality or wrong doing. Simply to keep him from office. But you believe the charges and he tried to "usurp" an election. Lol.

Tell us more about fiddles. And BLM. And global warming. And trans rights…..

---

More false victimhood and deflections.

Trump is not a victim. He's lying in a bed that he made with his repeated unconstitutional and perhaps illegal actions.

You don't see me making excuses for Biden's family's bad decisions. The right is chasing Biden and it's not even clear (yet) Biden himself has done anything illegal or even unethical. It is clear the optics are bad. It's clear Hunter is a hot mess legally.

Is Biden a victim of the right? No. He and Hunter are a victim of their own poor decisions and not paying enough attention to the optics and legality of their actions. The right would have no sweater string to pull but for the actions of Hunter (and we'll see but maybe Joe too).

Stop enabling. Just say Trump ****ed up bad and there may be legal consequences for him deciding that he would act on a election fraud fantasy because his ego and need to grift required it.

He played a stupid game with his attempts to overthrow an election and may very well win a lot of stupid prizes. That's nobody's fault but his.

---

More hypocrisy and deflections.

It's not clear Trump has done anything illegal yet you've shouted it for 6 years about whatever fake story you're told to be outraged about. Hypocrisy.

Your patronizing talking down about what the right should do accentuates how full of **** you are. You framed yourself as an independent on this message board. We all know that is a complete lie. Is that what the left "should do"? Misrepresent positions, muddy the waters, normalize indecency etc. Some high ground you're standing on.

You speak of not defending Biden. You pretty much don't comment on the Biden thread at all. Your only political commentary as it pertains to elections is Trump. Hence, TDS. You literally are pretending to doubt if Biden has even done anything unethical. Hahaha. Seriously?

Enabling? Lol. Again, hypocrisy. We don't know if Biden has done anything illegal, but you know Trump did??? We don't know if Biden has even done anything unethical??? Seriously? Is $20 million not enough to be "unethical" in pretindependent eyes? I thought you cared about "grifting"?

Trump didn't try to overthrow an election. People that lie about their party affiliation on message boards think if they say the same lie over and over again it will become true. They've learned that from watching their propaganda based news stations. Unfortunately, it does not. Not the way life works. Sorry.

The left keeps playing stupid games, they're going to get the horns. That's nobody's fault but their own.

---

Werewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Tucker asked Trump, twice… are you worried you will be shot and killed?

Trump engaged the second time by saying. These are savage people.

---

Nothing like wildly hypothetical martyrdom to maximize the sense of false victimhood.

Tucker and Trump pandering and grifting and playing his base like a fiddle.

---

Yes, because the left hasn't threatened this before. Wildly hypothetical! False victimhood! lol. Your TDS is so blinding it is hilarious. Talk about somebody getting played by a fiddle, look in the mirror, kiddo.

---

"The left" has threatened "this," what?

You make it sound like taking out Trump is part of the party platform.

Please show us where "the left" threatened anything of the sort in the credible way that you and Tucker Carlson are implying.

Being a president isn't without risk. Go look at the security incidents involving every single past US President. It's one of the highest-profile, most divisive jobs on the planet.

Obama had a whole laundry list of threats against him, triple the number of documented criminal threats towards Trump. Those threats weren't orchestrated by "the right." They were orchestrated by rando loons.

The framing of this question was not intended to highlight any particular risk Trump was or is facing that distinguishes him from others that have held the job in the past.

It was simply to shift the narrative from him being a perp facing over 90 state and federal charges back to him being a victim.

---

Wrong!!

It was only a speculative question, by Tucker. He prefaced it by saying… they've come after you with multiple attempts to get you disqualified. That's true!! What's next? Try and kill you?

BTW, Civ, you're so naive to think he was talking about Dem's only…

---

Amusing and sad at the same time to think this is R vrs D. What is underway is so much greater than this.

---