The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Referrals from a number of states have now become an active federal investigation. Bad news for the poor souls who signed their names to the documents in question. Maybe Trump will step in to help these dedicated supporters of his by paying their legal fees? After all, they literally put themselves on the line for him, seemingly at the direction of Trump's campaign officials. Might he step up to help them?

We now know 83 people submitted their names to the National Archives, naming themselves as the true electors when in fact they were not. Of those 25 were from NM and PA. Those 25 are probably off the hook because they submitted their names making it clear they were doing so on a provisional basis, saying they would only be real electors if Trump was officially declared the election winner in those states.

The other electors misrepresented themselves as real electors, using forged documents to do so. Those are the "poor souls" i referred to above. I believe they committed the very serious crime of election fraud and they are now beginning to realize they are in deep trouble for what they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
We now know 83 people submitted their names to the National Archives, naming themselves as the true electors when in fact they were not. Of those 25 were from NM and PA. Those 25 are probably off the hook because they submitted their names making it clear they were doing so on a provisional basis, saying they would only be real electors if Trump was officially declared the election winner in those states.

The other electors misrepresented themselves as real electors, using forged documents to do so. Those are the "poor souls" i referred to above. I believe they committed the very serious crime of election fraud and they are now beginning to realize they are in deep trouble for what they did.
They were alternate electors in case the court cases went their way. Everyone knows it. There is precedent of doing this back in 1960 presidential election in Hawaii. It’s a nothingburger.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
She wasn’t in this video, so how is this even relevant?

It's relevant because it serves to push back against the false narrative that some - possibly yourself included - have put forward about how these were all just poor, poor peaceful tourists/protestors/fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-term that were being "persecuted".

They were not.

Also, there were literally selfy takers putting back in place the velvet ropes. Lol.

After the violent ones - in an utter disregard and total lack of respect for our nation's sacred institutions - had knocked them over.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
It's relevant because it serves to push back against the false narrative that some - possibly yourself included - have put forward about how these were all just poor, poor peaceful tourists/protestors/fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-term that were being "persecuted".

They were not.



After the violent ones - in an utter disregard and total lack of respect for our nation's sacred institutions - had knocked them over.
I’m specifically talking about Ashli Babbitt walking between the velvet ropes and taking a selfie. She did not knock down any of the rope. This is on video. She also didn’t assault any officers. The only person she assaulted was the knucklehead that was bashing the glass with his helmet. She punched him to stop it. This is on video.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I’m specifically talking about Ashli Babbitt walking between the velvet ropes and taking a selfie. She did not knock down any of the rope. This is on video.

Ok.

She also didn’t assault any officers.

So far as you know.

The only person she assaulted was the knucklehead that was bashing the glass with his helmet. She punched him to stop it. This is on video.

How do you know that ?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Ok.



So far as you know.



How do you know that ?
What’s interesting is that people labeled her an insurrectionist, but all the video that I’ve seen showed her not doing any property damage , not assaulting any officers, yet the ONLY person apparently she just happened to punch in the face and knock his glasses off was another supposed “insurrectionist”who was breaking glass.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
What’s interesting is that people labeled her an insurrectionist, but all the video that I’ve seen showed her not doing any property damage , not assaulting any officers, yet the ONLY person apparently she just happened to punch in the face and knock his glasses off was another supposed “insurrectionist”who was breaking glass.

May she wasn't happy with how quickly he was getting that glass broken out ?

Ever think of that ?

Remember: she was calling for those doors to be opened and for the mob to be let in.

;)
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
May she wasn't happy with how quickly he was getting that glass broken out ?

Ever think of that ?

Remember: she was calling for those doors to be opened and for the mob to be let in.

;)
She punched him right after he broke the glass off. He broke it quickly.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
She punched him right after he broke the glass off. He broke it quickly.

And this is all based off of supposedly "new" video footage (which is doctored/edited) ... from an (Alex Jones) InfoWars videographer ... just "published" day before yesterday by the Epoch Times (and Gateway Pundit) ... more than a year after it supposedly happened ?

Sure ... you betcha !

:tearsofjoy:

You better hurry - otherwise you'll miss out on the "emergency 5x-impact" that has been "activated" by the Orange One ... to prevent Kamala (or others like her) from from sitting on the bench at SCOTUS.


:tearsofjoy:
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
They were alternate electors in case the court cases went their way. Everyone knows it. There is precedent of doing this back in 1960 presidential election in Hawaii. It’s a nothingburger.
That's one point of view. State and federal prosecutors and other officials see it differently, which is why the so-called "alternate electors" are now being investigated for election fraud and other crimes. If they are charged and convicted, they face years, not months, in jail.

Regarding the Hawaii precedent, it seems to me to be an apples-to-oranges comparison that does not apply in this case. "Seems to me" means little beyond me expressing my view. The Hawaii precedent argument will certainly be heard by the courts if the cases proceed to court, which seems likely at this point. The applicability of the precedent will be formally argued in court by experts who are learned in the law.

Looking into the Hawaii precedent further, I came across the following, written shortly after the Electoral College affirmed Biden's victory. You'll see there are major differences between the 1960 Hawaii electors context and the 2020 multi-state "alternative electors" context.

----------------------------------------

HAS ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?

Yes, actually. In the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, Hawaii’s Republican governor certified a Republican slate of electors after the initial count had Nixon winning the state by about 100 votes. But Democratic electors met anyway and insisted that Kennedy would win an ongoing recount.

The Democrats were right, and when it came time for Congress to consider which group of electors to count, it chose the Democratic one. It was Nixon himself, who was presiding over Congress as the outgoing vice president, who made the decision.

Pennsylvania’s alternate slate of Republican electors even cited the 1960 Hawaii case in a press release Monday, saying they were simply following Hawaii Democrats’ lead. “We took this procedural vote to preserve any legal claims that may be presented going forward,” said Bernie Comfort, Pennsylvania chair of the Trump campaign. “This was in no way an effort to usurp or contest the will of the Pennsylvania voters.”

Still, there’s an obvious difference — the outcome of the Hawaii election was actually unclear when the rival slates were appointed. Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,000 votes, and every court challenge the Trump campaign and its allies filed to contest has failed. Hawaii’s governor ended up sending both slates of electors to Congress. Pennsylvania’s governor is only sending Biden’s. (Source)
--------------------------------------------------
As I said in a previous post, I think the 2020 Pennsylvania (and New Mexico) alternate electors will not be charged with crimes, because they did not represent themselves to be the real electors and thereby did not commit election fraud. They explicitly covered their butts by stating they were submitting a contingent slate of electors. That was a meaningless act because no governor recognized it, but it was not an illegal act.

The others tried to pass themselves off as real electors, not to their respective state governors, but to the National Archives. They tried to bypass the system with false documents and are consequently being investigated now for certain criminal acts.

Also of interest:


On the flip side, and in favor of the so-called "alternate electors," this argument is also being made:

"Ben Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election attorney, called it "pretty unlikely" anyone involved in the scheme to send fake election results sees jail time, for instance, because there aren't clear laws that outlaw the specific action." (Source)

Those are the two arguments I have seen so far made in favor of the "alternate electors." (1) There aren't clear laws, and (2) the documents submitted were not forgeries promoting false electors, they were contingency documents following the Hawaii precedent.

I believe these people will be charged with crimes. We'll then learn, from trial outcomes, which views prevail.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online

Thankfully this has zero chance of actually getting passed, but my favorite line in this article is:

"We should have voting in my opinion in person, one day, on paper, with no electronic means and hand counting that day. We need to get back to 1958-style voting," he added.

Ok, fine, if that is what you want, then make sure and have enough polling stations with enough workers and make election day a national holiday and require that employers allow employees the time to vote. But that is not going to happen as the purpose of these laws is to prevent poor people from voting. Considering the founding fathers never intended for everyone to vote, this would be sending our country back in time.

This is a case where the Republicans have taken a page from Trumps corporate playbook, if you don't like how the numbers add up, change the formula.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
And this is all based off of supposedly "new" video footage (which is doctored/edited) ... from an (Alex Jones) InfoWars videographer ... just "published" day before yesterday by the Epoch Times (and Gateway Pundit) ... more than a year after it supposedly happened ?

Sure ... you betcha !

:tearsofjoy:

You better hurry - otherwise you'll miss out on the "emergency 5x-impact" that has been "activated" by the Orange One ... to prevent Kamala (or others like her) from from sitting on the bench at SCOTUS.


:tearsofjoy:
That’s what you’re going with, that it’s a fake punch by her and it knocked his glasses off?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
That’s what you’re going with, that it’s a fake punch by her and it knocked his glasses off?

No - what I'm going with is that you are apparently basing your assertion as to what happened off of an edited video released by a couple of highly questionable (partisan) outfits and their (breathless) "reporting" on it.

If the guy really had something, he'd release the full unedited video and post it somewhere on the web (not YouTube) ... so that people could look at it frame by frame and draw their own conclusions.

Possible that she could have hit him ?

Certainly.

But we have no insight as to exactly why it may have occurred if indeed it did.

If she did actually punch him, it only serves to confirm what has previously reported about her: she's prone to violence.
 
Top