We accuse the left of weaponizing government. so what do they do? Weaponize against Trump voters b4 election

[Lastamender]

Did this happen before or after Trump told Hillary in one of their debates that he was going to have her investigated and jailed?

When was that and let's have the quote. If I recall he said if he were president she would be in jail. He said nothing about an investigation.

 

[SeaMajor7]

it was 2020. Had nothing to do with the election.

You’re full of shit.

You assholes burned down half of DC when Trump was inaugurated!!!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

So trying to change the election results is not a crime.

There are several legal ways to change the results. None of which involves pressuring various election officials into somehow finding enough votes for them to win, or otherwise changing a states slate of electors after the election had been certified and the EC had cast there votes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Neither did Trump, but they are prosecuting him.

Yeah he did. That is just one of his alleged cases where he's is charged with multiple crimes. There are at least three others.

 

[Lastamender]

There are several legal ways to change the results. None of which involves pressuring various election officials into somehow finding enough votes for them to win, or otherwise changing a states slate of electors after the election had been certified and the EC had cast there votes.

That did not happen. The alternative electors were for such a challenge that would have happened before certification not after. Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

[BlindBoo]

Neither did Trump, asshole.

Of course he did. He didn't concede like Gore did. Gore presided over the Jan 6th Count. Benedict Donald has continued his litany of lies and actively tries to further divided the nation to this very day. He is the Asshole of America

 

[BlindBoo]

That did not happen. The alternative electors were for such a challenge that would have happened before certification not after. Do you even know what you are talking about?

There was only one set of fake electors who were smart enough to put that stipulation in writing. All the other certificates that were signed claimed they were the legitimate, valid electors that had won their states election. Aka, fraud.

 

[Lastamender]

There was only one set of fake electors who were smart enough to put that stipulation in writing. All the other certificates that were signed claimed they were the legitimate, valid electors that had won their states election. Aka, fraud.

They would have been legitimate if the election results were overturned by the state's legislature. They were appointed by Dec.14th 2020. All completely legal.

 

[BlindBoo]

They would have been legitimate if the election results were overturned by the state's legislature. They were appointed by Dec.14th 2020. All completely legal.

The State Legislatures do not have the power to overturn election results. The theory is complete legal bunk.

"It is this near‐plenary power that Eastman and other supporters of the former president have claimed gives state legislatures a blank check to overturn their state’s election results as well. In other words, Republican state legislators could convene and award electors to Trump’s slate even after the voters chose Biden. Some have pushed this theory so far as to claim legislatures can somehow revoke their 2020 electoral votes right now, long after the election is over and Biden has taken office. That is patently absurd, and to their credit it has been rejected by Republican legislative leaders in states such as Wisconsin.

https://www.cato.org/blog/state-legislatures-cant-overturn-presidential-election-results

Even in its more limited form covering the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Eastman’s theory ignores the plain text of the Constitution in an attempt to empower state legislators beyond their constitutional limits. State legislatures get to decide how electors are chosen, but Congress gets to say when electors are chosen. “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors,” as Article I succinctly puts it. Congress has done so by designating the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, otherwise known as Election Day.

Election Day is the deadline for the states to pick and implement their chosen method for appointing presidential electors. After that, state legislatures have no further say in the matter.

 

[Lastamender]

The State Legislatures do not have the power to overturn election results. The theory is complete legal bunk.

"It is this near‐plenary power that Eastman and other supporters of the former president have claimed gives state legislatures a blank check to overturn their state’s election results as well. In other words, Republican state legislators could convene and award electors to Trump’s slate even after the voters chose Biden. Some have pushed this theory so far as to claim legislatures can somehow revoke their 2020 electoral votes right now, long after the election is over and Biden has taken office. That is patently absurd, and to their credit it has been rejected by Republican legislative leaders in states such as Wisconsin.

https://www.cato.org/blog/state-legislatures-cant-overturn-presidential-election-results

Even in its more limited form covering the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Eastman’s theory ignores the plain text of the Constitution in an attempt to empower state legislators beyond their constitutional limits. State legislatures get to decide how electors are chosen, but Congress gets to say when electors are chosen. “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors,” as Article I succinctly puts it. Congress has done so by designating the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, otherwise known as Election Day.

Election Day is the deadline for the states to pick and implement their chosen method for appointing presidential electors. After that, state legislatures have no further say in the matter.

Yes they do. Period.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes they do. Period.

Not a singe state. They have all delegated that authority to the people and a Democratic vote based on the election laws they passed. They could try to legislate themselves a new election law that gives them that power in the next election, but they couldn't make their new election law retroactive. I imagine most governors would veto it. And I'm guessing the voters would replace the legislators who rob them of their right to choose their president in the next state election.

 

[Arlette]

remember what garland said on 60 minutes. Freaking lyer.
Newsweek isn't exactly CBN.
They do what they accuse others. Getting old ain't it. I'll garantee they'll be property damage from the left if Trump gets elected. Might even be another free beer night.

Exclusive: Donald Trump followers targeted by FBI as 2024 election nears

The government believes the threat of violence and major civil disturbances is so great, it has quietly created a new category of extremists: MAGA.

www.newsweek.com

I hope the FBI is checking you out. You seem unstable and prone to violent outbursts

 

[Lastamender]

Not a singe state. They have all delegated that authority to the people and a Democratic vote based on the election laws they passed. They could try to legislate themselves a new election law that gives them that power in the next election, but they couldn't make their new election law retroactive. I imagine most governors would veto it. And I'm guessing the voters would replace the legislators who rob them of their right to choose their president in the next state election.

They did it in Hawaii in 1960.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Yeah he did. That is just one of his alleged cases where he's is charged with multiple crimes. There are at least three others.

"Yeah he did"? There has been no adjudication of such. You must be psychic or something. Further, it is not logical to conclude someone is guilty based on the number of charges. You statement to this effect is simply proof that the politics around these shady prosecutions are working. You are having a Pavlovian response.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Yeah he did"? There has been no adjudication of such. You must be psychic or something. Further, it is not logical to conclude someone is guilty based on the number of charges. You statement to this effect is simply proof that the politics around these shady prosecutions are working. You are having a Pavlovian response.

Let me put it this way. Al Gore didn't commit any action after the courts finished. Donald Trump committed all the actions in question that made the 91 charges possible. Whether he is found guilty of the crimes he is charged with for those actions is up to the jury. Personally I'm willing to accept their verdicts.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Let me put it this way. Al Gore didn't commit any action after the courts finished. Donald Trump committed all the actions in question that made the 91 charges possible. Whether he is found guilty of the crimes he is charged with for those actions is up to the jury. Personally I'm willing to accept their verdicts.

Trump did things that leftists are now saying are criminal. BTW, you can "do RICO". You have to be tied into a criminal enterprise. It is a matter of fact, and the fact and inferences drawn therefrom are a long way yet from being litigated. However, like most TDS lefties, you have already made up your mind of his guilt. So, end of discussion.

 

[BlindBoo]

They did it in Hawaii in 1960.

Too funny. Even Nixon is an example of a man of courage.

"Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent"

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You see it was Hawaii's first vote and the recount were inconclusive when the EC voted. After they were finished Nixon simply chose the winner. The Hawaii state legislature didn't get involved, did they?

 

[Arlette]

Well, maybe you guys shouldn’t have rioted through the Capitol when you lost the last election.

You get what you deserve.

Yup. It boils down to J6. And they do it again. All Trump has to do is say the words. He has the best words.

 

[Lastamender]

Too funny. Even Nixon is an example of a man of courage.

"Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent"

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You see it was Hawaii's first vote and the recount were inconclusive when the EC voted. After they were finished Nixon simply chose the winner. The Hawaii state legislature didn't get involved, did they?

"After they were finished Nixon simply chose the winner."

How Kennedy Won Hawaii's Three Electoral Votes in 1960, even though Nixon's Electors Were Certified As Winnersby the Lieutenant Governor

How Kennedy Won Hawaii

 

[sealybobo]

Sealybobo is an election denier, and therefore, a threat to democracy.

Well supposedly that is why I and Gore didn't make a bigger stink about it. Bush was clever enough to get away with it. Once the Supreme Court decided it, we shut up and moved on. Didn't want to make the US look bad to the rest of the world or make people lose confidence in our free and fair elections.

It's why I actually agree with you guys on this one. I want to sure up elections to make sure they are legit. That means sending Democrats into Deep Red States to make sure they are as red as they claim to be. Full audits. Transparency. Recounts. Poll watchers. Get rid of electronic voting machines.

The things Trump claimed happened to him, happened to Gore. Diebold Voting Machines were hacked. Not Dominion.