Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
He's Going to Jail
52,282 Views |
548 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by FLBear5630
Wait, did my sarcasm really not come through? In case it didn't, I'm a conservative Never Trumper.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
I stand corrected!sombear said:Wait, did my sarcasm really not come through? In case it didn't, I'm a conservative Never Trumper.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
You, and the two numnuts who starred this post, need to do a better job of picking up sarcasm. Sombear was laying it on pretty thick.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
Georgia prosecutors say 150 witnesses will be called in 2020 election case https://t.co/EdtocVylWn
— Axios (@axios) September 7, 2023
Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As I stated on another site, this needs to be resolved. Hopefully, the Supreme Court gets involved and we have a ruling with NO GRAY area. I pray it is not allowable. If not and Trump found a loop-hole, the Dems will use it. Kamala will be playing the role of Pence, but she will do it in a heart beat. If what you are saying is true, it will change the way elections are carried out in the future and not for the better. Election won't matter, VP just choose the slate of electors you want. That really makes sense to you?whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
fed rule already closed the possible loop hole for VP role..FLBear5630 said:As I stated on another site, this needs to be resolved. Hopefully, the Supreme Court gets involved and we have a ruling with NO GRAY area. I pray it is not allowable. If not and Trump found a loop-hole, the Dems will use it. Kamala will be playing the role of Pence, but she will do it in a heart beat. If what you are saying is true, it will change the way elections are carried out in the future and not for the better. Election won't matter, VP just choose the slate of electors you want. That really makes sense to you?whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
A SCOTUS ruling would be helpful but there is no possible way for the VP to unilaterally decide to pick a slate of his/her choosing
The process for protesting using one house and one senate member during the Jan 6 count still stands.
This may get a real test after the completion of the 270 pact
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Exactly. If what Trump did was illegal, why did Congress see fit to change the law to make it illegal?4th and Inches said:fed rule already closed the possible loop hole for VP role..FLBear5630 said:As I stated on another site, this needs to be resolved. Hopefully, the Supreme Court gets involved and we have a ruling with NO GRAY area. I pray it is not allowable. If not and Trump found a loop-hole, the Dems will use it. Kamala will be playing the role of Pence, but she will do it in a heart beat. If what you are saying is true, it will change the way elections are carried out in the future and not for the better. Election won't matter, VP just choose the slate of electors you want. That really makes sense to you?whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
A SCOTUS ruling would be helpful but there is no possible way for the VP to unilaterally decide to pick a slate of his/her choosing
The process for protesting using one house and one senate member during the Jan 6 count still stands.
This may get a real test after the completion of the 270 pact
I agree. But until this plays out and the Chief Justice delivers the ruling, like other Chief Justices in our history when these questions arose, it will be polarizing. We need the closure and the SC is the last place left with any shred of honor left.4th and Inches said:fed rule already closed the possible loop hole for VP role..FLBear5630 said:As I stated on another site, this needs to be resolved. Hopefully, the Supreme Court gets involved and we have a ruling with NO GRAY area. I pray it is not allowable. If not and Trump found a loop-hole, the Dems will use it. Kamala will be playing the role of Pence, but she will do it in a heart beat. If what you are saying is true, it will change the way elections are carried out in the future and not for the better. Election won't matter, VP just choose the slate of electors you want. That really makes sense to you?whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
A SCOTUS ruling would be helpful but there is no possible way for the VP to unilaterally decide to pick a slate of his/her choosing
The process for protesting using one house and one senate member during the Jan 6 count still stands.
This may get a real test after the completion of the 270 pact
It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
Remind me what Roberts did in January 2022?FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
He said the SCOUS was not political and would not rule on any of the election issues going on. Personally, I believe it is a role only the SCOUS can play.Sam Lowry said:Remind me what Roberts did in January 2022?FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
I am pulling from the recesses of my mind, while putting together a scope for a PDE. So, if I am off be kind.
Voting for democrats is worse than voting for Trump, even if you buy into the J6 bill sh it narratives.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
Supporting devastating policies makes you worse. A lot worse than Trump.
It seems to me that the argument he makes is only applicable in the quantum realm: Quantum electors, or Schrödinger's cat electors where the election remains undetermined. The reality on earth1 is that the election was determined, by the certification of the elections by the States. Once that was accomplished, electors are chosen based on the election count. There is and has only ever been one set of legal electors adopted by the legislature (yes, there is the end of Reconstruction incident where it was not clear who the legislature was. In 2020, none of the states were in that situation!) Alternate electors, end up like the alternative version of the Schrödinger's cat, or Job Candidates/Head Coaches/Ministers we did not hire or call, or anyone your spouse may have dated before you got married: we choose not to think of them again...Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
“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
define liberal policies that are destroying the country? I do NOT want open borders. I think immigration is important, but ALL must follow the rules and the rules must be enforced . Yes, I am for intervention when it is in our best interest. Inflation? ***? nobody wants inflation and for you to suggest I for it is just ridiculous . Spending. Trump was drunk as Cooter Brown relative to spending. You seen the deficit he rack up? Not good. As far as Woke is concerned , I don't even know what that means. As far as military is concerned....We need everyone who wants to be there and does their job, irrespective of who they are. finally, I have said repeatedly, I'm all about fiscal conservatism. I'm socially liberal. Unfortunately, the R's are just as bad as the D's. Personally, I would never vote for Trump again. He is a child, fraud, bully and I would never vote for him.Mothra said:The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
I won't vote D's. I will not vote Trump. I will sit outDoc Holliday said:Voting for democrats is worse than voting for Trump, even if you buy into the J6 bill sh it narratives.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
Supporting devastating policies makes you worse. A lot worse than Trump.
So you believe that immigration rules should be followed and enforced, are against inflation, less spending, a prepared military, and fiscal conservatism, but will vote in a way that gets a guy elected who is the antithesis of all of the above? And you really need someone to define "wokeism" for you?J.R. said:define liberal policies that are destroying the country? I do NOT want open borders. I think immigration is important, but ALL must follow the rules and the rules must be enforced . Yes, I am for intervention when it is in our best interest. Inflation? ***? nobody wants inflation and for you to suggest I for it is just ridiculous . Spending. Trump was drunk as Cooter Brown relative to spending. You seen the deficit he rack up? Not good. As far as Woke is concerned , I don't even know what that means. As far as military is concerned....We need everyone who wants to be there and does their job, irrespective of who they are. finally, I have said repeatedly, I'm all about fiscal conservatism. I'm socially liberal. Unfortunately, the R's are just as bad as the D's. Personally, I would never vote for Trump again. He is a child, fraud, bully and I would never vote for him.Mothra said:The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
With all due respect, you're as dense as a brick.
That's okay, I guess you meant 2021. I think the courts did a good job handling the cases. They can only address the issues that are before them. The problem is that Trump tried to make an end run.FLBear5630 said:He said the SCOUS was not political and would not rule on any of the election issues going on. Personally, I believe it is a role only the SCOUS can play.Sam Lowry said:Remind me what Roberts did in January 2022?FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
I am pulling from the recesses of my mind, while putting together a scope for a PDE. So, if I am off be kind.
Damn, you are in a mood today! Getting off caffeine?Mothra said:So you believe that immigration rules should be followed and enforced, are against inflation, less spending, a prepared military, and fiscal conservatism, but will vote in a way that gets a guy elected who is the antithesis of all of the above? And you really need someone to define "wokeism" for you?J.R. said:define liberal policies that are destroying the country? I do NOT want open borders. I think immigration is important, but ALL must follow the rules and the rules must be enforced . Yes, I am for intervention when it is in our best interest. Inflation? ***? nobody wants inflation and for you to suggest I for it is just ridiculous . Spending. Trump was drunk as Cooter Brown relative to spending. You seen the deficit he rack up? Not good. As far as Woke is concerned , I don't even know what that means. As far as military is concerned....We need everyone who wants to be there and does their job, irrespective of who they are. finally, I have said repeatedly, I'm all about fiscal conservatism. I'm socially liberal. Unfortunately, the R's are just as bad as the D's. Personally, I would never vote for Trump again. He is a child, fraud, bully and I would never vote for him.Mothra said:The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
With all due respect, you're as dense as a brick.
1. Open BordersJ.R. said:define liberal policies that are destroying the country? I do NOT want open borders. I think immigration is important, but ALL must follow the rules and the rules must be enforced . Yes, I am for intervention when it is in our best interest. Inflation? ***? nobody wants inflation and for you to suggest I for it is just ridiculous . Spending. Trump was drunk as Cooter Brown relative to spending. You seen the deficit he rack up? Not good. As far as Woke is concerned , I don't even know what that means. As far as military is concerned....We need everyone who wants to be there and does their job, irrespective of who they are. finally, I have said repeatedly, I'm all about fiscal conservatism. I'm socially liberal. Unfortunately, the R's are just as bad as the D's. Personally, I would never vote for Trump again. He is a child, fraud, bully and I would never vote for him.Mothra said:The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
2. Defunding police departments
3. Two standards of justice based on political opinions
4. Anti-free speech initiatives
5., Warmongering
6. Big Pharma giveaways
7. Porn in schools
8. Grooming children for pedophilia
9. Racist policies for hiring and promotion
10. Fascistic efforts to promote gigantic corporations over small businesses
Next?
how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
JR is typical of the reactionary irrational centrist - defining himself by what he is not rather than what he is. He is not a progressive and he is not a libertarian. He therefore calls himself a conservative, but in reality what he stands for depends on what others say and do.... The "socially liberal" buzzwords are also illuminating. They mean (for Republicans) "I'm not willing to fight against anything the Democrats do beyond the budget....just keep my taxes low. The rest of ya....stifle...so nobody will think I'm with you."Harrison Bergeron said:1. Open BordersJ.R. said:define liberal policies that are destroying the country? I do NOT want open borders. I think immigration is important, but ALL must follow the rules and the rules must be enforced . Yes, I am for intervention when it is in our best interest. Inflation? ***? nobody wants inflation and for you to suggest I for it is just ridiculous . Spending. Trump was drunk as Cooter Brown relative to spending. You seen the deficit he rack up? Not good. As far as Woke is concerned , I don't even know what that means. As far as military is concerned....We need everyone who wants to be there and does their job, irrespective of who they are. finally, I have said repeatedly, I'm all about fiscal conservatism. I'm socially liberal. Unfortunately, the R's are just as bad as the D's. Personally, I would never vote for Trump again. He is a child, fraud, bully and I would never vote for him.Mothra said:The same thing could be asked of you. As a purported conservative, you want a continuation of liberal policies that are destroying our country? You want open borders? You want an interventionist foreign policy? You want proxy wars with other superpowers? You want out of control inflation and spending? You want woke policies being instituted in federal govt? You want an emphasis on diversity and inclusion in our military as opposed to military readiness?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.
I don't want Trump anymore than you do, but if it's a binary choice, if you truly are the conservative you claim to be, a vote for whomever the GOP nominee is is a no-brainer when you consider the alternative.
2. Defunding police departments
3. Two standards of justice based on political opinions
4. Anti-free speech initiatives
5., Warmongering
6. Big Pharma giveaways
7. Porn in schools
8. Grooming children for pedophilia
9. Racist policies for hiring and promotion
10. Fascistic efforts to promote gigantic corporations over small businesses
Next?
JR thus joins Asa Hutchinson as a delegate in the "smaller party" caucus. The SP caucus that only believes in a narrow part of the agenda - fiscal responsibility and good governance - and is unwilling to make themselves and their party stronger by joining with like-minded individuals who feel strongly about additional things, particularly constitutional liberties and social issues. Oh no. We can't engage in such unseemly things like Democrats do, because those issues don't matter one way or the other. Besides, those people are nuts and reflect badly on the SP caucus, so they must be driven back behind the baseboards.
Meanwhile, Democrats caucus with Marxists, Socialists, avowed racists, Queer Theory practicioners, etc......because they know they'll get a lot more thru the Overton Window if they let their crazies expand the definition of what is acceptable discourse.
Republicans, according to the SP caucus, must remain studiously silent so as not to antagonize the demolition of the foundations that support the walls which hold the Overton Window.
This is correct, and a real problem. Team Trump tried to convince the pre determined GOP electors to go along with this plan, but they wouldn't, so they established an unauthorized slate post election. Many of those legitimate electors are being called to testify.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...whiterock said:how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Add to that, the current crop of Democrats aren't really democrats -they're fascist authoritarians disguised as socialists pretending to be freedom loving patriots the care about democracy.Doc Holliday said:Voting for democrats is worse than voting for Trump, even if you buy into the J6 bill sh it narratives.J.R. said:Obviously, you fit the RWNJ persona I referenced. He lost the election, period. He is NOT president. No, R's lost the houses because he IS Trump. You obviously don't understand. Trump is bad for the country. He is a criminal.sombear said: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.
Supporting devastating policies makes you worse. A lot worse than Trump.
FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
So, if I start a campaign that the constitution intended for the mothership connection to assume power in 2024 and create justification through nonsensical interpretation of the founders writings supported by a "legal scholar" I should be a Le to get the court to take on the case?
Put a glide in your slide!
So, what does Checks and Balances mean to you?Mitch Blood Green said:FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
So, if I start a campaign that the constitution intended for the mothership connection to assume power in 2024 and create justification through nonsensical interpretation of the founders writings supported by a "legal scholar" I should be a Le to get the court to take on the case?
Put a glide in your slide!
FLBear5630 said:So, what does Checks and Balances mean to you?Mitch Blood Green said:FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
So, if I start a campaign that the constitution intended for the mothership connection to assume power in 2024 and create justification through nonsensical interpretation of the founders writings supported by a "legal scholar" I should be a Le to get the court to take on the case?
Put a glide in your slide!
It means that after all process has been followed and exhausted that the extraterrestrial brothers are gonna come down and regain Dixie as outlined in the 3/5th compromise.
Swing sweet chariot stop and let me ride.
Don't forget to ask for a ride in their space, I am sure it is named the Gen Lee... ET was really an extra on the Dukes of Hazzard.Mitch Blood Green said:FLBear5630 said:So, what does Checks and Balances mean to you?Mitch Blood Green said:FLBear5630 said:Roberts needed to address this in January 2022. Not run away or let it go to the trial courts. As a Nation, we need a definitive answer.Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort. As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said: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.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
So, if I start a campaign that the constitution intended for the mothership connection to assume power in 2024 and create justification through nonsensical interpretation of the founders writings supported by a "legal scholar" I should be a Le to get the court to take on the case?
Put a glide in your slide!
It means that after all process has been followed and exhausted that the extraterrestrial brothers are gonna come down and regain Dixie as outlawed in the 3/5th compromise.
Swing sweet chariot and let me ride.