FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

---

Should be short trials, probably dismissals based on that nothing happened of Jan 6th and his phone calls in GA were perfect and he was allowed to have all the documents and Stormy Daniels broke the NDA.

Non-issues really once you explain them. Should be no problem and his polls will go up and he can play the victim. Everything is coming up Donald...

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

---

Should be short trials, probably dismissals based on that nothing happened of Jan 6th and his phone calls in GA were perfect and he was allowed to have all the documents and Stormy Daniels broke the NDA.

Non-issues really once you explain them. Should be no problem and his polls will go up and he can play the victim. Everything is coming up Donald...

---

Grifter gonna grift

Trump touts new T-shirt merch with Georgia mug shot in latest video

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110986361659563775

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

---

Should be short trials, probably dismissals based on that nothing happened of Jan 6th and his phone calls in GA were perfect and he was allowed to have all the documents and Stormy Daniels broke the NDA.

Non-issues really once you explain them. Should be no problem and his polls will go up and he can play the victim. Everything is coming up Donald...

---

Grifter gonna grift

Trump touts new T-shirt merch with Georgia mug shot in latest video

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110986361659563775

---

Meanwhile, more J6 defendants are getting brutal sentences, and GA defendants have no way to pay $ millions in attorneys' fees after Trump reneged on his promise to help all of them. And, of course, Trump is using campaign contributions to pay his. The leader of our party ladies and gentlemen. What an utter scumbag.

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

---

Should be short trials, probably dismissals based on that nothing happened of Jan 6th and his phone calls in GA were perfect and he was allowed to have all the documents and Stormy Daniels broke the NDA.

Non-issues really once you explain them. Should be no problem and his polls will go up and he can play the victim. Everything is coming up Donald...

---

Grifter gonna grift

Trump touts new T-shirt merch with Georgia mug shot in latest video

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110986361659563775

---

Meanwhile, more J6 defendants are getting brutal sentences, and GA defendants have no way to pay $ millions in attorneys' fees after Trump reneged on his promise to help all of them. And, of course, Trump is using campaign contributions to pay his. The leader of our party ladies and gentlemen. What an utter scumbag.

---

Trump reneged?? Hard to believe

Osodecentx said:

---

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

and he didnt

---

No, he used a national intimidation campaign. He used his position as. His boss to put pressure on him. So what Trump and his MAGA supporters did and said was right and legal?

---

if your boss told you to rob a bank but you didnt is it still bank robbery?

---

You tell you Assistant to commit tax fraud, you are on safe legal ground?

---

did he do it?

---

This is not about Pence. You can lose your job and be arrested for using your position to pressure your subordinate to do something illegal. White House Counsel and VP Counsel said he couldn't do it. Yet he pressured Pence to do it. Is that illegal? Well, we are going to find out.

---

you are arguing he used his position to pressure a subordinate? You do realize both of them had no job in 14 days right? He had zero leverage

---

Should be no problem then. There is the little thing that at the time he was his boss and the outcome would have given Trump the White House, but that is a non-issue because Pence didn't do it. Right?

Attempting to rob a store is not a crime, only if you succeed, right? The get away driver backed out so we called it off in the middle, but no harm/no foul .. This should be a cake walk in Court for Donald.

---

there was no attempt if it wasnt attempted.

Talking about it isnt doing it or even attempting it.

The things yall claim were helpful are anything but.. the mob wasnt helpful, it wasnt leverage, it actually prevented it from happening(which it wasnt happening anyway)

What was happening was the normal process of reciewing and contesting just like many other recent presidential elections.

The court will decide what the courts decide depending on if they have biased against or biased for the defendent. As with any case..

Personally, i dont care. Lock him up and the Dems lose to whomever replaces him. Dont lock him up and he will probably win. I dont see a negative for me other than having to listen to spoiled cry babies for 4 years again

---

Should be short trials, probably dismissals based on that nothing happened of Jan 6th and his phone calls in GA were perfect and he was allowed to have all the documents and Stormy Daniels broke the NDA.

Non-issues really once you explain them. Should be no problem and his polls will go up and he can play the victim. Everything is coming up Donald...

---

Grifter gonna grift

Trump touts new T-shirt merch with Georgia mug shot in latest video

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110986361659563775

---

Meanwhile, more J6 defendants are getting brutal sentences, and GA defendants have no way to pay $ millions in attorneys' fees after Trump reneged on his promise to help all of them. And, of course, Trump is using campaign contributions to pay his. The leader of our party ladies and gentlemen. What an utter scumbag.

---

Trump reneged?? Hard to believe

---

A habit developed over decades of screwing over suppliers and contractors.

HuMcK said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

Trump told Pence not to accept and substitute different electors than the State submitted, that is different than convincing a duly appointed one to change their vote.

Trump could sue in Court, demand recounts and even ask officials to find more votes (giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is just how he talks). What he can't do, is force the VP to change the electors during certification.

---

He didn't force that…

Force isn't verbal demand.

---

He used his position and followers and did nothing while the Capital was stormed with Pence inside. He smiles and in an interview said the demonstrators were mad. The guy you want to be President again.

Watching a really good historical show on Netflix. Hitlers: Circle of Evil, you should watch it. Very good.

---

I want Rand Paul to be POTUS, but he's not running unfortunately.

Trump is the best bet to actually be POTUS because of polling. That's not an endorsement of Trump, it's just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Trump told people to be peaceful prior to them trespassing.

Hitler was a socialist leftoid psychopath. Nazi society normalized hatred of Jews just like the modern left with their monopoly on media and academia is normalizing the hatred of anyone opposed to their politics.

---

How many mass shootings now committed by people wearing swastikas? I can think of at least two just this year. Those aren't "leftists", they are your people. That's what you are supporting, you are the one normalizing hatred of others.

Not for nothing, but those famous pictures of Nazis burning books, were outside the Munich Institute of Sexology. They were attacking the queer "woke" sectors of their society to "protect children". Sound familiar? For you to sit there and turn that **** around on "the left" is full on Orwellian. And no, Hitler was not a socialist in any meaningful sense of the word, he sent those people straight to the camps after he consolidated his power.

---

Fewer than have been committed by trainies.

Hitler was definitely a socialist.

---

That would come as quite a surprise to all of the capitalistic private companies that produced German equipment.

---

NAZI is the German acronym for "National Socialist."

And DPRK is the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so I guess that means the Kim family must win a lot of democratic elections...

HuMcK said:

---

And DPRK is the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so I guess that means the Kim family must win a lot of democratic elections...

---

Yeah, all the East Bloc engaged in euphemism on steroids, didn't they.

The problem for your argument, though, is that the Nazis actually were a collectivist regime, furthest thing from capitalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan

Communism is socialism by class.
Fascism is socialism by race.
Same system, just a different ostensible beneficiary.

HuMcK said:

---

And DPRK is the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so I guess that means the Kim family must win a lot of democratic elections...

---

According to Kim, he does ...

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

boognish_bear said:

---

---

You have the right to remain silent. Do you have the ability?

Now AG goes to Nauta and offers a no time served deal to flip

Atlanta actually isn't even in the Top 20 for anyone keeping score at home

https://www.southwestjournal.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us-2023-a-comprehensive-analysis/

And flock actually want this nut back in D.C. with his fingers near the BOX????

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

And flock actually want this nut back in D.C. with his fingers near the BOX????

---

Amazing times we live in

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

If he had nuclear documents, how can anyone say this is a witch hunt? Explains FBI reaction at Mar Lago.

Trump is blaming Nauta... Some actually believe this is a non-issue.

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

LOL. That's not what the comments say, at all. They are defending Nauta, who is being prosecuted right along with Trump.

And no POTUS has ever packed his own boxes at the end of his term. Indeed, that is exactly the defense Democrats have given for Biden and others caught in similar issues. And it's valid.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidential election.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

That's a red herring. Parties have gone after actual presidents - that's more than "parallel." Starting with Nixon, every Pres except Obama had a special/independent counsel investigate them, and even for Obama, the GOP wanted it done relative to the gun runner scandal. GOP is after Biden now. There is nothing new about what is happening to Trump.

I've said all along, I'm not convinced the election crap is crime. But, the theories are no more flimsy than what most prior special/independent counsel have investigated (supported by the opposing party). And, I must say, the more I read about Trump's election challenges, the worse it looks. I'm still not ready to change my mind, it is really ugly.

And the documents/obstruction is a perfectly legitimate charge, and I think he's convicted absent jury nullification.

Again, the only difference is Trump's idiotic and reckless conduct.

---

You're comparing apples to oranges IMO. To me, there is a significant difference between trying to find ways to impeach a sitting president, and charging him with criminal conduct, that would effectively prevent him from running for president.

Whether you will admit it, or not, what's going on with Trump is indeed, unprecedented. Now I don't disagree with you that he's brought most if not all of this on himself. But I'm also not so naive to believe that this is anything other than a politically motivated prosecution that looks far different than anything we've seen before.

---

To be clear, all of those indep counsels were investigating and considering criminal charges, and the opposing party was calling for criminal charges. Just as our party is now against Biden.

We agree that these are politically motivated, but so have been all the others. But that doesn't make any of this unprecedented. Bringing the actual criminal charges is basically new, but it's not because neither party has tried in the past. And I continue to maintain that nobody else has done the things Trump has done.

Would we have wanted to charge Obama criminally if he stole, hid, and obstructed a fed investigation regarding classified docs? Of course we would have, just like we wanted for Hillary. And military and political figures have been indicted for less.

Again, the election challenge-related charged are a different animal, but have others done the things Trump has done? Lied in numerous state and fed court pleadings about fraud? Tried to coerce his VP into violating the constitution? Made questionable (at best) requests to "find votes?" Tried to coerce state officials into changing numbers?

---

I don't think we are that far apart. Perhaps our lone disagreement is on the term "unprecedented". I don't disagree with you that special counsel has looked into criminal conduct of sitting president before. However, what we are seeing now with Trump in my opinion, is the militarization of law-enforcement resources - the DOJ and left wing district attorneys offices - to stop a political opponent. I think that's quite different than what we've seen before, which is why I would call such conduct unprecedented. It seems like the Rubicon has been crossed.

One other thing to mention: while trumps recent conduct has exposed him to significant liability, it's worth noting that the criminal investigations were going on long before January 6. I mean, let's face it, the Democrats have had a hard on for Trump since 2016. Remember Russian collusion? Remember the New York Attorney General's office investigating his business dealings? This is what I'm talking about when I mean the militarization of law-enforcement resources. That is truly unprecedented.

---

This is the thoughtful answer. The Establishment has been weaponized against Trump from the FBI laundering the Clinton campaign's fake Russia dossier, the fake impeachment, "Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation" to these banana republic legal actions.

The precedent had always been we don't use political prosecutions to interfere with elections and undermine democracy, but once again the Democrat party has respect for nothing but power and authoritarian control. We certainly did not invent novel "legal theory" to prosecute political opponents. Jack Smith has a history of political prosecutions, and the bimbo in Georgia literally ran her campaign on "get Trump." One has to be regarded to think these are not purely political prosecutions. I mean the craziest case of all is the New York suing Trump's business when the actual parties with standing are not suing him.

Some things are more important than "Orange Man Bad." Continuing to destroy trust, integrity, and basic protocol to "Get Trump" is too high a price. Obviously the authoritarian Democrats do not believe in democracy or fair elections because they simply could trust the American people to vote against Trump - no need to launch a Hitler-style Beer Hall pusch.

---

Exactly. What's being done TO him is a far worse threat to the Republic than anything he himself has said or done. It is a precedent which cannot be allowed to stand.

whiterock said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

LOL. That's not what the comments say, at all. They are defending Nauta, who is being prosecuted right along with Trump.

And no POTUS has ever packed his own boxes at the end of his term. Indeed, that is exactly the defense Democrats have given for Biden and others caught in similar issues. And it's valid.

---

Whiterock, c'mon . . . he is 100% throwing the poor guy under the bus.

Osodecentx said:

---

Meanwhile, more J6 defendants are getting brutal sentences, and GA defendants have no way to pay $ millions in attorneys' fees after Trump reneged on his promise to help all of them. And, of course, Trump is using campaign contributions to pay his. The leader of our party ladies and gentlemen. What an utter scumbag.


Trump reneged?? Hard to believe

---

These Democrat are opening frivolous prosecutions all over the country, using public funds, against individuals who do not have the personal wealth or income to defend themselves. Trump cannot raise enough money to defend them all. He has his own set of frivolous prosecutions to deal with.

The real scumbags are the Democrat prosecutors who are weaponizing law enforcement for partisan political purposes.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

LOL. That's not what the comments say, at all. They are defending Nauta, who is being prosecuted right along with Trump.

And no POTUS has ever packed his own boxes at the end of his term. Indeed, that is exactly the defense Democrats have given for Biden and others caught in similar issues. And it's valid.

---

Whiterock, c'mon . . . he is 100% throwing the poor guy under the bus.

---

You are repeating a neverTrump talking point.

"I am confident he did not place any nuclear secrets in the boxes."
That is a defense.
That is asserting the allegation is false.
That is denying there are any nuclear secrets in the boxes.

Trump did not pack the boxes.
Presidents never pack out the official materials or HHE.
Staff does.

If Trump instructed Natua to put classified material in the boxes, Natua will testify thusly. That we have not already seen leaks that Nauta intends to testify thusly is a pretty strong indicator Trump did not instruct him to do so.

Surprised to see you carrying the spin.......

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidential election.

---

It's not a crime to keep beating that straw man when it's already in pieces…but it should be!

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidential election.

---

It's not a crime to keep beating that straw man when it's already in pieces…but it should be!

---

You are free to stop doing it at any time.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

LOL. That's not what the comments say, at all. They are defending Nauta, who is being prosecuted right along with Trump.

And no POTUS has ever packed his own boxes at the end of his term. Indeed, that is exactly the defense Democrats have given for Biden and others caught in similar issues. And it's valid.

---

Whiterock, c'mon . . . he is 100% throwing the poor guy under the bus.

---

You are repeating a neverTrump talking point.

"I am confident he did not place any nuclear secrets in the boxes."
That is a defense.
That is asserting the allegation is false.
That is denying there are any nuclear secrets in the boxes.

Trump did not pack the boxes.
Presidents never pack out the official materials or HHE.
Staff does.

If Trump instructed Natua to put classified material in the boxes, Natua will testify thusly. That we have not already seen leaks that Nauta intends to testify thusly is a pretty strong indicator Trump did not instruct him to do so.

Surprised to see you carrying the spin.......

---

It's not spin. It's my read on it. Trump has a history of throwing friends and colleagues under the bus to protect himself.

Trump obviously likes to foreshadow his arguments on twitter (against his attorneys' wishes). In my view, he clearly is setting up the "aide screwed up" defense. We'll know soon enough.

whiterock said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

No one has ever, more thoroughly, emphatically thrown an employee or subordinate under the bus. Not sure Nauta realizes how deeply s####d he is.

---

LOL. That's not what the comments say, at all. They are defending Nauta, who is being prosecuted right along with Trump.

And no POTUS has ever packed his own boxes at the end of his term. Indeed, that is exactly the defense Democrats have given for Biden and others caught in similar issues. And it's valid.

---

Trump, by his own words is claiming he instructed Nauta to not box "nuclear secrets." So, any such documents found in Florida, or NJ would, according to his claim, have been the result of Nauta's actions, intentional or otherwise. This admission would suggest no such instructions were given as to other classified and top-secret documents not containing nuclear secrets. Based on the cover sheet and markings of the Nuclear secret documents and based on the instructions allegedly passed on to Nauta by Trump, there is no plausible explanation for Nauta's actions other than that they were criminal. By Trump's words alone, Nauta could spend much of his life in Prison.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

---

Your theory is not exactly bizarre. It's beyond bizarre.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

---

Your theory is not exactly bizarre. It's beyond bizarre.

---

No theory. Just law.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

---

I'm not a lawyer, and as I recently read a definition of one as someone who could think solely about one thing, without thinking of a second thing inextricably connected to the first... I admit, I'm not that far gone...

For what it's worth, it looks to me like the Electoral Count Act put the responsibility of the electors firmly in the State. While fake electors may be part of the overall conspiracy mentioned in the Federal indictments, the actual crime committed pertains and occurs in Georgia and the various states. As the State Legislature has the power to select electors, another group of electors selected not by the legislature, Governor, etc. is in effect an illegal action against the State of GA. The group of conspirators, against the legitimate elected officials of the State, chose to act essentially as a government in themselves. If that's not a crime in the State of Georgia, they should seriously review their statutes.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Giving a pass is immaterial. Many have sought indictments in the judicial courts with Trump and the Bidens but no one has sought them for Hillary and that is not a pass it is just how the system works. Write your congress person and get them to investigate Hillary.

---

That is because until now, political prosecutions in this country were not a thing. But now that your party has opened Pandora's Box and has started to behave like we are a banana republic, I suspect we are going to start seeing Republican DA's and U.S. attorneys start doing the exact same thing.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...

---

Political prosecutions have been happening forever. Too many governors, senators, congressmen, and others to count. Both parties also have tried to go after Presidents and Presidential candidates. Nothing is new about any of this. If anything is new, it's that Trump is just a despicable human being who also happens to be stupid in many ways and thinks he is above the law.

---

While I partly agree with you, this is the first time that a party has gone after a former president and the likely presidential nominee for one of the major parties before an election. And even though I agree with you on Trump being despicable, let's not pretend that all of these prosecutors, save and except the documents charge, are using statutes very creatively and in a way they've never been used to find that Trump committed a crime.

All of the above is indeed unprecedented. Name me a parallel, and I am willing to reconsider my position.

Good luck!

---

A necessary predicate to finding your desired parallel would be for you to point out an example where a losing Presidential candidate concocted a conspiracy to use forged documents and send false slates of electors to try and keep himself in office, thereby disenfranchising tens of millions of legitimate voters. The prosecution is novel because the criminal acts were novel, not really all that complicated.

So...we're waiting.

---

Al Gore Jr. in 2000.

---

Gore asked for recounts, he didn't ask for new electors!

---

He had alternate electors.

The Democrats called for electors to violate their "oath" in 2016. Should they be arrested for attempting to disenfranchise millions?

---

alternate electors is not a new thing. Also neither a crime, nor fraud, nor insurrection, nor anything nefarious at all.

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

---

Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?

According to the National Archives, not only the State has to submit by the laws they have in place on election day, but they have to be identified on election day. State legislature have broad authority in this matter, but a person or candidate can't just submit their own slate. He is going to lose.

Appoint electors

The Constitution and Federal law generally do not prescribe the method of appointment, but there are some requirements. States are required to appoint electors in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to Election Day. Electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day*).

*States that appoint electors by popular vote (currently all) may include a modified voting period necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic as part of 'election day'.

In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the voters of each State choose the electors by voting for their preferred candidates in the state-wide general election. While State laws on the appointment of electors may vary, in general the slate of electors that wins the popular vote is appointed by the State's Executive.

Under the Constitution and Federal law, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, as long as that process is in place before Election Day, with one exception regarding the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that "no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" may be appointed as an elector.

TWD 1974 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.

---

it is not a crime to be an alternate elector, given that every state elects a slate of alternate electors in every presidential election. Neither is it a crime of fraud or insurrection for those electors to exercise their 1st amendment rights of assembly to meet, discuss, vote, plan for political activity, etc or do any other thing, to include discussion and actions taken for contingency purposes. Such has been done in every presidentiIt is

---

It is a crime to submit if your State Legislature already submitted. Individuals cannot put together electors and submit them in conflict with the Legislature. I may agree if the Legislature sent 2 slates.

---

That is the premise your argument needs, but not the law on electoral vote. Show the statute that says an alternate slate of electors is illegal.

The purpose of election certification is to determine the validity of election returns. In the case of electors, it is to look at election returns and then certify the valid slate. By definition, a slate of electors for the losing side cannot and will not be certified. You are going deep in the TDS rabbit hole, alleging as fraud something which by definition cannot happen - tricking State Election officials into mistakenly certifying the wrong slate of electors. Those State Election officials will, in such a scenario, have two slates before them. They will look at the election returns and certify thusly. The submission of the alternate slate is merely a contingency to ensure the slate is not rejected for failing to meet statutory deadlines, should ongoing court action have the effect of reversing election results.

The allegation of fraud over "alternate electors" is prosecutorial abuse, throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping it will stick. Neither Trump nor his electors did anything which has not been done before. It's only an outrage because Trump was involved.

If this stands, the next GOP AG should immediately investigate the phone and social media records of every Democrat elector and prosecute any of them who met or communicated with one another in any way, since such would be evidence that clearly suggests they were engaging in conspiracy to overturn the election. That is the precedent being set here.

---

I'm not a lawyer, and as I recently read a definition of one as someone who could think solely about one thing, without thinking of a second thing inextricably connected to the first... I admit, I'm not that far gone...

For what it's worth, it looks to me like the Electoral Count Act put the responsibility of the electors firmly in the State. While fake electors may be part of the overall conspiracy mentioned in the Federal indictments, the actual crime committed pertains and occurs in Georgia and the various states. As the State Legislature has the power to select electors, another group of electors selected not by the legislature, Governor, etc. is in effect an illegal action against the State of GA. The group of conspirators, against the legitimate elected officials of the State, chose to act essentially as a government in themselves. If that's not a crime in the State of Georgia, they should seriously review their statutes.

---

You are correct there in bold. It is an enumerated Constitutional power afforded to states. And each of those state legislatures write statute in their Election Code explaining how electors are to be selected. for all but a couple, the process is straightforward - each party populates a list of electors (elected by various methods), and the electors of the party that won the election move forward to the Electoral College (which meets in each state at a time/place specified in statue). So, in all 50 states, TWO SLATES OF ELECTORS EXIST on election day. The state election official (in Tx, the Secretary of State) is instructed by statute to certify the slate from the party which won the presidential election in Texas. That slate moves forward to meet at the appointed time/place to cast their electoral votes (by means & with restrictions specified in state law). The other slate is ignored and sent to the dust bin of history. But in a contested outcome.....both slates do have an interest in ensuring their electors are prepared to be certified, that they don't fail their election challenge by failing to meet any statutory deadline.

Democrats are making the case that non-certified GOP electors meeting at a Denny's across the street from the Electoral College location to cast votes amongst themselves over a Rootin' Tootin' breakfast, and later submitting documentation of such to the state election official, is election fraud. Such is patently and outlandishly absurd. State law instructs every Certifying Official in procedures for identifying the proper slate to certify. There can be no confusion. The power is not with the electors. It is with the certifying officer. I mean, the case for insurrection here is as goofy as the Flat Earth Society meeting to form a Ministry of Silly Walks.

Dems started all this hoopla by descrying "alternate electors" as something new and horrifying. In fact, two slates of electors are on the desk of the senior State Election official in every presidential election. Those Election Officials know full well who are the electors selected by each party. They know full well which candidate won the presidential election in their state, ergo which electors to certify and which to not. And they have detailed state statute to guide their actions in the case of a contested election. So the idea there is an "irregularity" anywhere in this process is just plain silly. It's like yanking the comforter off the bed and screeching "my God! There is an electric blanket on this bed!! Someone is trying to electrocute me!!!"

This issue is a highly contrived distraction. The weaponization of it all is far more concerning than anything the alternate electors did. Police state stuff.