Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

I do not see the big deal about this; do you think they didn’t run this by a lot of legal minds?

I certainly want to hear their side of it. In court. After all, the first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him.

All we have now is the indictment, where they lay out their case against Trump. If what they allege is true this will be a big deal. What they alleged is a scheme cooked up by Trump’s attorneys to stay in office. The fake electors, would create a fake controversy to give Pence an excuse to set the plan in motion.

But, obviously Smith is not above lying and cheating himself. They could have fabricated the whole thing. So we’ll just have to see how Trump defends against it and what evidence they have that tends to exonerate Trump.

 

[Ingomike]

I certainly want to hear their side of it. In court. After all, the first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him.

All we have now is the indictment, where they lay out their case against Trump. If what they allege is true this will be a big deal. What they alleged is a scheme cooked up by Trump’s attorneys to stay in office. The fake electors, would create a fake controversy to give Pence an excuse to set the plan in motion.

But, obviously Smith is not above lying and cheating himself. They could have fabricated the whole thing. So we’ll just have to see how Trump defends against it and what evidence they have that tends to exonerate Trump.

Why do you use the language of the leftist lawfare machine? The proper words, (not leftist focus group words) are alternate electors.

What they alleged is a scheme cooked up by Trump’s attorneys to stay in office. The fake electors, would create a fake controversy to give Pence an excuse to set the plan in motion.

Any efforts to challenge a stolen election will be defined as “a scheme cooked up by Trump’s attorneys to stay in office” by the opponents…

 

[jamil]

Why do you use the language of the leftist lawfare machine? The proper words, (not leftist focus group words) are alternate electors.

I'm using the words in the indictment as I talk about what Trump is accused of doing. Of course, everything alleged is just that. Allegations. Trump hasn't presented a case against. But anyway, "alternate electors" doesn't strike me as any more accurate. It's like calling a garbage man a sanitation engineer. If the electors were not certified by the states involved, then they were fake electors.

Any efforts to challenge a stolen election will be defined as “a scheme cooked up by Trump’s attorneys to stay in office” by the opponents…

In case you didn't read it the first time.

Well, that you haven't seen evidence might be that you're not looking in the right places for it.

---

At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

---

This is from Eastman's memo that you linked to earlier. Keep in mind, those electors are all fake. None of them were certified by the states. The idea for sending an alternate slate of electors started with an earlier memo. The idea there was to seek out a slate of electors in Wisconsin in case Trump prevails in court there, so that Wisconsin would be able to certify them if needed.

In that plan, none of the alternate electors would be used unless Trump won the court battles there. The indictment says that's fine, but alleges that this plan morphed into sending their votes to the President of the Senate as if certified. The Eastman memo does support some of the language in the indictment, mostly that part of Pence's role to gavel in Trump as winner amid the controversy.

It does not call them fake, which they are, which also means that the controversy is fake. Also, the Eastman memo linked does not have Pence choosing to count the fake electors' votes. It just has him claiming that there's a controversy because of multiple slates of electors in several states. Even though the controversy is planned and contrived.

The indictment alludes to a trail of memos, emails, and conversations between co-conspirators, and others, about what the plan actually was. So they're saying that it's more than what is outlined in Eastman's memo.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm using the words in the indictment as I talk about what Trump is accused of doing. Of course, everything alleged is just that. Allegations. Trump hasn't presented a case against. But anyway, "alternate electors" doesn't strike me as any more accurate. It's like calling a garbage man a sanitation engineer. If the electors were not certified by the states involved, then they were fake electors.


In case you didn't read it the first time.

Like I said, you like the language of the left on this. A ****ing strategy exchange by lawyer’s representing a client is now criminal conspiracy…

 

[jamil]

Like I said, you like the language of the left on this.

I like it? I thought you didn't like people telling you what you think.

A ****ing strategy exchange by lawyer’s representing a client is now criminal conspiracy…

Wait a minute though. Are you forgetting what you're arguing here? This wasn't merely an exchange between lawyers. If it was merely just lawyers talking, why was Trump pissed that Pence didn't do his part? What exactly was Pence supposed to have done? Do you not believe Eastman's own words that you posted about what the plan is?

Now, if this all turns out to be ********, that's awesome. Seems like it would be pretty easy for team Trump to prove they never sent a slate of electors to Pence so that he could create a fake controversy and gavel in Trump as POTUS and so on.

 

[Ingomike]

I like it? I thought you didn't like people telling you what you think.

You use language you don’t like? That is what you are saying not thinking…

 

[Ingomike]

I like it? I thought you didn't like people telling you what you think.


Wait a minute though. Are you forgetting what you're arguing here? This wasn't merely an exchange between lawyers. If it was merely just lawyers talking, why was Trump pissed that Pence didn't do his part? What exactly was Pence supposed to have done? Do you not believe Eastman's own words that you posted about what the plan is?

Now, if this all turns out to be ********, that's awesome. Seems like it would be pretty easy for team Trump to prove they never sent a slate of electors to Pence so that he could create a fake controversy and gavel in Trump as POTUS and so on.

There are no”fake electors”. That is prejudicial wording. They are correctly called alternate electors.

 

[jamil]

You use language you don’t like? That is what you are saying not thinking…

Were the "alternate" electors certified by the states? If not, and the Trump team attempted to submit them as certified, they're fake. I hope you noted that when I referred to the original plan for Wisconsin, I did use the language "alternate slate". That plan had no intention of using the electors if Trump did not win in court.

And I'm not using the left's language. I'm using what the indictment claims is the language of one of Trump's lawyers. She is alleged to have referred to Trump's electors in the 7 states as "fake" electors, in a conversation with other co-conspirators in the indictment. And that should be pretty easy to sort out in court. Either she said it or she didn't. Either they have the proof or they don't. But again, we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out in court.

 

[jamil]

There are no”fake electors”. That is prejudicial wording. They are correctly called alternate electors.

No. If Trump's team went through with the plan as alleged, which was to send the slates of electors as if certified, but not actually certified by the states, they're fake.

 

[Ingomike]

No. If Trump's team went through with the plan as alleged, which was to send the slates of electors as if certified, but not actually certified by the states, they're fake.

There were several unconstitutional slates too…

 

[jamil]

There were several unconstitutional slates too…

All 7 states in question certified their electors for Biden, who received the most votes in each state. You can certainly contest the fairness of the election. But in terms of certification, all 7 states in question did that.

The issue of election shenanigans is about the number of votes each candidate had. The issue of certifying the slate of electors who had the most votes is about the state following their own laws about how they attest that the electors chosen were for the candidate with the most votes.

Your contention seems to be that because Democrats cheated on the vote, the certification of Biden’s electors was unconstitutional. But, unless the vote is contested and cheating proven in court, it’s only an accusation. The certification of electors happened. The bad guy, or at least the most bad guy won.

Trump losing in all his court cases does not justify what is alleged in the indictment.

 

[Ingomike]

All 7 states in question certified their electors for Biden, who received the most votes in each state. You can certainly contest the fairness of the election. But in terms of certification, all 7 states in question did that.

The issue of election shenanigans is about the number of votes each candidate had. The issue of certifying the slate of electors who had the most votes is about the state following their own laws about how they attest that the electors chosen were for the candidate with the most votes.

Your contention seems to be that because Democrats cheated on the vote, the certification of Biden’s electors was unconstitutional. But, unless the vote is contested and cheating proven in court, it’s only an accusation. The certification of electors happened. The bad guy, or at least the most bad guy won.

Trump losing in all his court cases does not justify what is alleged in the indictment.

No it is not. Please outline in the constitution where is says any of that gobbledygook, I’ll wait.

It requires no courts nor any of that other crap, it simply is, was the election conducted as prescribed by the legislature? If votes were certified, a process of the legislature, not constitution, but otherwise were not obtained as prescribed by the legislature they are unconstitutional. The SOS that certified them knowingly violated their oath.

 

[KLB]

No it is not. Please outline in the constitution where is says any of that gobbledygook, I’ll wait.

It requires no courts nor any of that other crap, it simply is, was the election conducted as prescribed by the legislature? If votes were certified, a process of the legislature, not constitution, but otherwise were not obtained as prescribed by the legislature they are unconstitutional. The SOS that certified them knowingly violated their oath.

That is all for the state to determine.

 

[Ingomike]

That is all for the state to determine.

No it is not. Reread your copy of the constitution.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The legislature directs the appointment of electors. That is it. If the electors are appointed in a way not directed by the legislature they are unconstitutional.

It is unbelievable to me that so many are worried about anything and everything but violations of what the constitution says…

 

[jamil]

No it is not. Please outline in the constitution where is says any of that gobbledygook, I’ll wait.

It requires no courts nor any of that other crap, it simply is, was the election conducted as prescribed by the legislature? If votes were certified, a process of the legislature, not constitution, but otherwise were not obtained as prescribed by the legislature they are unconstitutional. The SOS that certified them knowingly violated their oath.

So because you say so, it’s unconstitutional? You don’t think your beliefs need to be adjudicated as true? You can just read a GWP article and that’s it?

Dude. Prove it. The only place to resolve your accusations are in a court. Just like the only place to resolve the DOJ’s accusations against Trump are in a court. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says Ingomike’s word makes it true.

 

[Route 45]

So because you say so, it’s unconstitutional? You don’t think your beliefs need to be adjudicated as true? You can just read a GWP article and that’s it?

Dude. Prove it. The only place to resolve your accusations are in a court. Just like the only place to resolve the DOJ’s accusations against Trump are in a court. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says Ingomike’s word makes it true.

The three branches of government are the Executive, the Legislative and the Homeowners Association.

 

[jamil]

Google X certificate of ascertainment 2020 where X is each of the 7 states in question. They’re all certified pursuant to federal law. Arizona’s is interesting because it’s CA acknowledges the court battle and their state Supreme Court ruling upholding the original certification.

In all cases the electors certified were the ones with the most “official” votes. If you contest the votes theres a place to do that.

 

[Ingomike]

So because you say so, it’s unconstitutional? You don’t think your beliefs need to be adjudicated as true? You can just read a GWP article and that’s it?

Dude. Prove it. The only place to resolve your accusations are in a court. Just like the only place to resolve the DOJ’s accusations against Trump are in a court. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says Ingomike’s word makes it true.

It is what the founders wrote, not me. Read it. If people are too stupid to see it, too brainwashed by the propaganda we are doomed. How incredible that they have convinced smart people that they need a court to tell them if something simple like if a state followed the “manner”directed by the legislature is constitutional or not, like the courts are not as corrupt as most of our government...

 

[Ingomike]

Google X certificate of ascertainment 2020 where X is each of the 7 states in question. They’re all certified pursuant to federal law. Arizona’s is interesting because it’s CA acknowledges the court battle and their state Supreme Court ruling upholding the original certification.

In all cases the electors certified were the ones with the most “official” votes. If you contest the votes theres a place to do that.

Please show me the word certified in the constitution…

 

[jamil]

It is what the founders wrote, not me. Read it. If people are too stupid to see it, too brainwashed by the propaganda we are doomed. How incredible that they have convinced smart people that they need a court to tell them if something simple like if a state followed the “manner”directed by the legislature is constitutional or not, like the courts are not as corrupt as most of our government...

I’m thinking I’m not the one brainwashed here. I don’t think you get the point. It’s not up to Mike, albeit armed with a doctorate in truth social, to just declare it. There are people who would contest your version of it. Hmmm. Where is the place to resolve legal disputes? If only the founders had the foresight to create a branch of government to handle conflicting legal claims.