There would be no mess if you knew the difference between bull**** and breakfast bacon.Osodecentx said:Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?Quote: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.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.Quote:
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
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.
He's Going to Jail
52,283 Views |
548 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by FLBear5630
whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
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.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
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.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
You and Trump's legal team are serving up bull***** Let's see id a jury knows the differencewhiterock said:There would be no mess if you knew the difference between bull**** and breakfast bacon.Osodecentx said:Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?Quote: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.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.Quote:
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
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.
No, it is not the same legal team. They are all under arrest for the last scheme they cooked up...Osodecentx said:You and Trump's legal team are serving up bull***** Let's see id a jury knows the differencewhiterock said:There would be no mess if you knew the difference between bull**** and breakfast bacon.Osodecentx said:Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?Quote: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.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.Quote:
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
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.
There's not a single republican than can get more than 50M votes other than Trump right now. Trump is polling much higher than he did for the 2020 election and pulled 70M+ votes...FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
You need to accept that if Trump is jailed and 14th'd, GOP is done forever.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
Nailed it.KaiBear said:Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
We had a chance to bring America back from the brink in 2022. We failed.
You can even discard the phony vote counts. The fact that our federal gov't pressured and paid media (both legacy and social) to squash a legit news story then censor/ban people for trying to share it and label it as disinformation, shows the lengths they'll go through so that the an election is not fairly decided by actual voters.
I knew someday the USA would cease to exist as a democracy/republic. I just didn't think I'd witness it first hand.
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
I have not dug into the minutia of these cases. Having said that, Trump may be guilty of something (I rather suspect he is). Prosecutors may be overstepping their bounds in some of their prosecutions of him (I rather suspect they are).
Both of these can be true at the same time.
In any event, the Constitution was not written to "safeguard our democracy," it was written to protect us against our federal government by ensuring that we had a federal government of limited powers as it related both to state governments and to individual citizens. It was designed to be strong enough to do its job, but, specifically and deliberately, no stronger.
I'm voting for DeSanits, but nice tryAliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
Likewise, if his name was Biden (or any other democrat), you'd say it's no big deal, or should I say "a nuthin' burge"Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
Never voted for a Democrat for President but i'll pass on both if Trump is party nominee.
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
I'll still vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I'd rather not have the current crop of people in Biden's White House have another 4 years.Aliceinbubbleland said:
Never voted for a Democrat for President but i'll pass on both if Trump is party nominee.
I'd prefer Trump over the alternative, but that's just me.
Still voting for DeSantis in the primary
I will end up doing the same. 2016, 2020 all over againRawhide said:I'll still vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I'd rather not have the current crop of people in Biden's White House have another 4 years.Aliceinbubbleland said:
Never voted for a Democrat for President but i'll pass on both if Trump is party nominee.
I'd prefer Trump over the alternative, but that's just me.
Still voting for DeSantis in the primary
No, you are drunk on Democrat Kool Aid.FLBear5630 said:The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
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.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
The losing party's electors are indeed, legally, procedurally, of no consequence whatsoever. They can take no action whatsoever to affect the outcome of the election. Only the campaign can file suit to prevent certification of the election. The electors are literally waiting to see what SOMEONE ELSE, an elected official and a judge, does with their electoral votes. Electors meeting amongst themselves in a small room somewhere down the street from the appointed EC location to discuss or vote amongst themselves cannot accomplish anything, other than to meet statutory deadlines should the election challenges become successful. If the election challenges are not successful, which they weren't, their actions are completely, utterly, 100% irrelevant. The state election official will certify the electoral votes of the side that won the election. There is no practical or impractical, legal or extralegal way for the loser's electoral vote to get substituted for the winner's electoral votes by hook, crook, or oversight. That's what the certification process is all about....to make sure the process was followed. And it was.
Your argument here is all emote and completely divorced from the reality of law and process. I mean, really. Seriously. You're in outer space. Read the law. The Trump campaign followed what the Kennedy campaign did in 1960 as a model. But it's Trump, so obviouslyyyyyyyy INSURRECTION!!!!!!!
I have evidence (my allegation) that you and Dan Paxton are sharing the same mistress. Let's see what a jury has to say about that.Osodecentx said:You and Trump's legal team are serving up bull***** Let's see id a jury knows the differencewhiterock said:There would be no mess if you knew the difference between bull**** and breakfast bacon.Osodecentx said:Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?Quote: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.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.Quote:
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
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.
That part in bold is sad, and I think there's evidence far more people than we'd be willing to admit have had that thought flicker thru their brain at least once. How do we know this? Look at the support for Trump.Rawhide said:Nailed it.KaiBear said:Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
We had a chance to bring America back from the brink in 2022. We failed.
You can even discard the phony vote counts. The fact that our federal gov't pressured and paid media (both legacy and social) to squash a legit news story then censor/ban people for trying to share it and label it as disinformation, shows the lengths they'll go through so that the an election is not fairly decided by actual voters.
I knew someday the USA would cease to exist as a democracy/republic. I just didn't think I'd witness it first hand.
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
The real argument over whether or not to nominate Trump is, in a sense, an avatar for where people stand on that question. Those who think the Republic is still functioning and just needs a bit more than normal course correction.....are not Trump supporters. The ones who think it's too far gone and needs extraordinary measures.....that's your Trump vote = 60% of the primary electorate and over 40% of the population.
I think that is the proper analytical structure to evaluate developments. And it is sobering. +40% of the public is resigned to dark days ahead, no matter what. Not a good place for a Republic to be.
You keep missing the big point, the electors Trump submitted from the "losers" side change the winner. They become the "winners".whiterock said:No, you are drunk on Democrat Kool Aid.FLBear5630 said:The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
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.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
The losing party's electors are indeed, legally, procedurally, of no consequence whatsoever. They can take no action whatsoever to affect the outcome of the election. Only the campaign can file suit to prevent certification of the election. The electors are literally waiting to see what SOMEONE ELSE, an elected official and a judge, does with their electoral votes. Electors meeting amongst themselves in a small room somewhere down the street from the appointed EC location to discuss or vote amongst themselves cannot accomplish anything, other than to meet statutory deadlines should the election challenges become successful. If the election challenges are not successful, which they weren't, their actions are completely, utterly, 100% irrelevant. The state election official will certify the electoral votes of the side that won the election. There is no practical or impractical, legal or extralegal way for the loser's electoral vote to get substituted for the winner's electoral votes by hook, crook, or oversight. That's what the certification process is all about....to make sure the process was followed. And it was.
Your argument here is all emote and completely divorced from the reality of law and process. I mean, really. Seriously. You're in outer space. Read the law. The Trump campaign followed what the Kennedy campaign did in 1960 as a model. But it's Trump, so obviouslyyyyyyyy INSURRECTION!!!!!!!
I have read the law, there is NO provision for an individual to submit their own slate of electors. Only the State can and they have to be identified on election day, not certification day. Trump found electors between election day and certification day and told Pence to accept those. That is the definition of trying to overturn an election.
Eastman, Powell, Trump, Guliani cannot recruit and submit their own electors from cherry-picked States. It is pretty simple. And when you look at it pretty ridiculous that any adult would think it is all right to do what they did!
As for insurrection, that word gets used an awful lot. I am not sure there is proof that Trump had anything to do with the violence on Jan 6th. Everything I can read suggests that his antics provided an opportunity for others to do their own agenda.
there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
The State submites their electors, not the Candidates. Using your logic, Biden could submit his own electors and the VP has the discretion to pick who he wants. It is ridiculous.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
Trump's team attempted to create a new slate of GOP electors for Georgia in December after the election, and tried to sway state officials to submit them.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
So, you hard core right wingers will vote for Trump while knowing he lost the Presidency, Senate and House. You guys seriously want more of this? That is what you will get. Unfortunately , there is NO Republican Party, just the Party of Trump and that is a losing hand all day long. Trump cannot win the WH. Why the R's can't put forward better candidates with a shot.
whiterock said:I have evidence (my allegation) that you and Dan Paxton are sharing the same mistress. Let's see what a jury has to say about that.Osodecentx said:You and Trump's legal team are serving up bull***** Let's see id a jury knows the differencewhiterock said:There would be no mess if you knew the difference between bull**** and breakfast bacon.Osodecentx said:Were you part of the crack team of legal experts that got Trump into this mess? Have you been talking to Giuliani or Eastland?Quote: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.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.Quote:
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
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.
Tell 'Dan' hello
I think this is the real issue. I used to see Trump as a kind of counter-revolutionary who would restore the constitutional order. Some would say that once the revolution starts, the old order is past and the battle is over who and what will replace it. Trump evidently holds this view. I'm not ready to give up on the republic just yet.whiterock said:That part in bold is sad, and I think there's evidence far more people than we'd be willing to admit have had that thought flicker thru their brain at least once. How do we know this? Look at the support for Trump.Rawhide said:Nailed it.KaiBear said:Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
We had a chance to bring America back from the brink in 2022. We failed.
You can even discard the phony vote counts. The fact that our federal gov't pressured and paid media (both legacy and social) to squash a legit news story then censor/ban people for trying to share it and label it as disinformation, shows the lengths they'll go through so that the an election is not fairly decided by actual voters.
I knew someday the USA would cease to exist as a democracy/republic. I just didn't think I'd witness it first hand.
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
The real argument over whether or not to nominate Trump is, in a sense, an avatar for where people stand on that question. Those who think the Republic is still functioning and just needs a bit more than normal course correction.....are not Trump supporters. The ones who think it's too far gone and needs extraordinary measures.....that's your Trump vote = 60% of the primary electorate and over 40% of the population.
I think that is the proper analytical structure to evaluate developments. And it is sobering. +40% of the public is resigned to dark days ahead, no matter what. Not a good place for a Republic to be.
Not only that, he thinks he is above the law. You are seeing that behavior right now with his tweeting about the case. He is daring them to hold him in contempt.Sam Lowry said:I think this is the real issue. I used to see Trump as a kind of counter-revolutionary who would restore the constitutional order. Some would say that once the revolution starts, the old order is past and the battle is over who and what will replace it. Trump evidently holds this view. I'm not ready to give up on the republic just yet.whiterock said:That part in bold is sad, and I think there's evidence far more people than we'd be willing to admit have had that thought flicker thru their brain at least once. How do we know this? Look at the support for Trump.Rawhide said:Nailed it.KaiBear said:Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
We had a chance to bring America back from the brink in 2022. We failed.
You can even discard the phony vote counts. The fact that our federal gov't pressured and paid media (both legacy and social) to squash a legit news story then censor/ban people for trying to share it and label it as disinformation, shows the lengths they'll go through so that the an election is not fairly decided by actual voters.
I knew someday the USA would cease to exist as a democracy/republic. I just didn't think I'd witness it first hand.
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
The real argument over whether or not to nominate Trump is, in a sense, an avatar for where people stand on that question. Those who think the Republic is still functioning and just needs a bit more than normal course correction.....are not Trump supporters. The ones who think it's too far gone and needs extraordinary measures.....that's your Trump vote = 60% of the primary electorate and over 40% of the population.
I think that is the proper analytical structure to evaluate developments. And it is sobering. +40% of the public is resigned to dark days ahead, no matter what. Not a good place for a Republic to be.
I have heard some thinking on the far left that another Trump term would be just what was needed to bring on the class war...Sam Lowry said:I think this is the real issue. I used to see Trump as a kind of counter-revolutionary who would restore the constitutional order. Some would say that once the revolution starts, the old order is past and the battle is over who and what will replace it. Trump evidently holds this view. I'm not ready to give up on the republic just yet.whiterock said:That part in bold is sad, and I think there's evidence far more people than we'd be willing to admit have had that thought flicker thru their brain at least once. How do we know this? Look at the support for Trump.Rawhide said:Nailed it.KaiBear said:Its already far too late.Doc Holliday said:FLBear5630 said:Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump is better than the left winning in totality. If they win 2024, the SC will change and our country goes off the deep end. There is no coming back from losing 2024.
Dems have engineered a phoney vote count in enough states that is unbeatable and undetectable.
Republicans won't win the White House for another 20 years, if ever.
The SC will be alterred resulting with free speech and property rights being 'reformed'.
That is, of course unless Biden successfully gets the US into a war with Russia.
Then none of this matters within 20 minutes of a Russian nuclear lauch from their 4-5 subs that are always offshore in the Atlantic.
We had a chance to bring America back from the brink in 2022. We failed.
You can even discard the phony vote counts. The fact that our federal gov't pressured and paid media (both legacy and social) to squash a legit news story then censor/ban people for trying to share it and label it as disinformation, shows the lengths they'll go through so that the an election is not fairly decided by actual voters.
I knew someday the USA would cease to exist as a democracy/republic. I just didn't think I'd witness it first hand.
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
The real argument over whether or not to nominate Trump is, in a sense, an avatar for where people stand on that question. Those who think the Republic is still functioning and just needs a bit more than normal course correction.....are not Trump supporters. The ones who think it's too far gone and needs extraordinary measures.....that's your Trump vote = 60% of the primary electorate and over 40% of the population.
I think that is the proper analytical structure to evaluate developments. And it is sobering. +40% of the public is resigned to dark days ahead, no matter what. Not a good place for a Republic to be.
The problem with American Democracy is pretty much how Churchill described: Americans will choose the right thing, after exhausting the other options...
For those of us concerned with the next election and how we might keep our own personal freedoms, property, et. al, I would keep hold of the Constitution. As old and flawed as it is, it is still the greatest safeguard devised by humans in preserving human liberty.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
not what I said and yes, what you said is ridiculous and not what happenedFLBear5630 said:The State submites their electors, not the Candidates. Using your logic, Biden could submit his own electors and the VP has the discretion to pick who he wants. It is ridiculous.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
No, Pence accepted the correct State slate. Trump asked him to reject the properly submitted slate, which he had no authority to do.4th and Inches said:not what I said and yes, what you said is ridiculous and not what happenedFLBear5630 said:The State submites their electors, not the Candidates. Using your logic, Biden could submit his own electors and the VP has the discretion to pick who he wants. It is ridiculous.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
who are you arguing with? I never said pence did anything other than what he was supposed to do..FLBear5630 said:No, Pence accepted the correct State slate. Trump asked him to reject the properly submitted slate, which he had no authority to do.4th and Inches said:not what I said and yes, what you said is ridiculous and not what happenedFLBear5630 said:The State submites their electors, not the Candidates. Using your logic, Biden could submit his own electors and the VP has the discretion to pick who he wants. It is ridiculous.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
I pointed out a small detail and you are straight scattershooting all over the place. You have ADD?
Of course he had no authority.. especially now that they changed the law to clarify he doesnt
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
You obviously just don't understand . . . not only did he not lose the election, but he's the only one able to make sure the "fraud" never happens again . . . even though it happened to him . . . .J.R. said:
So, you hard core right wingers will vote for Trump while knowing he lost the Presidency, Senate and House. You guys seriously want more of this? That is what you will get. Unfortunately , there is NO Republican Party, just the Party of Trump and that is a losing hand all day long. Trump cannot win the WH. Why the R's can't put forward better candidates with a shot.
And the reason we lost the house and senate is because candidates weren't Trump enough . . . even though the biggest losers in the most closely watched races were Trumpers.
And the guy best prepared to fight the current and future false criminal charges is the guy with no integrity or self control with pending charges against him . . .
Can't make this stuff up.
We are in two different threads, so they are mixed up. Too long a thread for a phone...4th and Inches said:who are you arguing with? I never said pence did anything other than what he was supposed to do..FLBear5630 said:No, Pence accepted the correct State slate. Trump asked him to reject the properly submitted slate, which he had no authority to do.4th and Inches said:not what I said and yes, what you said is ridiculous and not what happenedFLBear5630 said:The State submites their electors, not the Candidates. Using your logic, Biden could submit his own electors and the VP has the discretion to pick who he wants. It is ridiculous.4th and Inches said:there was a slate in place by election day..FLBear5630 said:whiterock said: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.TWD 1974 said: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...Quote: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.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.Quote: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 isQuote:
Absolutely right. Unless of course a crime, fraud, or insurrection is involved.
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.
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.
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.
The piece you keep missing is that they need to be in place by election day. You can't come up with a new slate on Jan 5th and submit them as a individual. He is going to lose on this. It is going to be defined as trying to overthrow the election and they are going to use the 14th Amendment. And technically they are going to be right and it will be confirmed by the SC, with Trumps judges. He is done.
Need to start thinking of who can win that was on the stage. I say Haley.
Both Trumps slate and Bidens slate were already set prior to election. Is the slate that was turned in different than the pre picked slate?
I pointed out a small detail and you are straight scattershooting all over the place. You have ADD?
Of course he had no authority.. especially now that they changed the law to clarify he doesnt