Just when I settled down and thought 'faithless electors' would never overturn this election...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Something else to anticipate if 'faithless electors' cause this election to be overturned.

Historically, no 'faithless elector' has ever been prosecuted for flipping their votes. BUT, imagine the sense of martyrdom 'they' could create, on the left, if the courts went after any faithless elector that refused to vote for Trump?

That's exactly the kind of social injustice 'they' love to exploit.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'd still like the answers to those flipping questions!

You and me both. As a reminder, here they are:

Accordingly, please respond to the following questions no later than November 4, 2016:

1. Has anyone at the FBI had the ability to read any of the content of the newly discovered emails? If not, then how do you know that they appear to be pertinent to the FBI’s inquiry? If so, does any of the content upon initial review suggest obstruction of or false statements to Congress or the FBI by Secretary Clinton or her senior aides? Please explain.

2. What time frame do the newly discovered emails cover and approximately how many are there?

3. Is there any preliminary information to suggest that a significant number of the newly discovered emails are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI?

4. Did the FBI obtain the device(s) through which it learned of the existence of new emails mentioned in your letter on Friday through compulsory process? If so, please describe Director Comey the nature and scope of the process in detail. If not, then how did the FBI learn of the existence of the new emails mentioned in your letter?

5. At any point in the Clinton email investigation, did the FBI request use of a grand jury from the Justice Department? If not, why not? If the Department declined, please describe the circumstances in detail. Who at the Justice Department made that decision and what grounds were given for the denial?

6. At any point in the Clinton investigation, did the FBI request an application for a search warrant from the Justice Department? If not, why not? If so, what was the Department’s response? If the Department declined, please describe the circumstances in detail. Who at the Justice Department made that decision and what grounds were given for the denial?

7. According to news reports, the FBI has recently obtained a search warrant for the emails in question. If those reports are accurate, please provide the Committee with copies of the material provided to the court in support of the warrant, including any affidavits executed by FBI personnel.

8. According to news reports, the FBI has also been conducting a criminal inquiry involving the Clinton Foundation. Yet, Justice Department officials reportedly denied the FBI's request for a grand jury in that matter and pressured senior FBI officials not to pursue the matter through other means. Is it true that the Department denied the FBI's request for a grand jury in the Clinton Foundation investigation?

9. Press reports also indicate that the Justice Department denied the FBI the ability to search the laptops of senior Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson for information related to the Clinton Foundation inquiry. Is it true that the FBI requested such a search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops, but DOJ denied that request? If the FBI did make such a request, was that request made before or after the Department executed its agreement with Mills and Samuelson for a narrow voluntary search and destruction of the laptops?

10. Please provide the committee with all records related to communications between FBI and DOJ officials regarding: (a) requests for any sort of court-supervised process, such as empaneling a grand jury or applying for a search warrant in connection with the Clinton email or Clinton Foundation investigations, or (b) the Mills and Samuelson laptops that were to subject of limited immunity agreements.

Sure seemed to me that Grassley was hot on the trail of the DoJ in these questions.

The laptops which apparently were not destroyed.

I just looked and other than a few news articles which more or less regurgitate earlier ones about Grassley's letter, there is NO follow up on the questions reported on ANY news site.

I want to make a note in this thread that, since 2005, Nevada has repealed their state law binding electors.

There is also an issue regarding alleged voter/voter registration fraud in North Carolina, going on right now.

And, Michigan has still not certified their vote.

***

Could be entirely meaningless, but if any of these states have an impact on anything -- from this point on -- I think these factoids warrant revisiting.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I know...there were so many good questions...

...all for naught without the answers.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

This is not the first time I raised a question about this Trump University fraud case in the last week only to find it 'addressed' soon after:

EXCLUSIVE: President-elect makes bizarre request to find out how JURY was screened and chosen in Trump University trial - and uses 1982 Native American jury discrimination case as precedent

I bet the response will NOT be that the jury was selected from voter registration lists.

(BTW, I left a comment at the Daily Mail the other day about this...and suddenly they have the exclusive on Donald wondering about it, too.)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Lol, butterfly effect and you're the butterfly.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Lol, butterfly effect and you're the butterfly.

Notice they called it a "bizarre" request?

I don't think it's that bizarre given voter registration lists are used to select the pool.

Before a single juror has been questioned and vetted by both parties to the suit...before a single juror was selected for the pool...someone knew their political affiliation.

The jury pool could be entirely white 'all-American-type' men...and every single one of them could still be a Democrat, by design. And I am sure Trump's attorney cannot ask a prospective juror who they voted for.

I was just looking through the LA Times and other California news sources...

...Here's some headlines at the LA Times:

L.A. leaders just vowed to fight deportations under Trump. Here's what they've proposed.

Donald Trump was right: The election was rigged. Now it's time to get rid of the electoral college.

Donald Trump's victory sparks optimism in an unlikely place: Iran.

When Trump says he wants to deport criminals, he means something starkly different than Obama

Why uncertainty still reigns in the Trump transition.

White nationalists' 'man in the White House'? Bannon appointment provokes angry rebukes.

Why California went its own liberal way in the election.


***


Yeah...prolly real bad this case is being heard in California.

Just look at this:



They are trying so hard to make us believe she is a wreck.

It's one thing if she was so upset she couldn't get out of bed to put on any makeup or wash and style her hair.

BUT OTHER PEOPLE DO THOSE JOBS FOR HER.

Are her stylists too depressed to do her hair and makeup? NO!

She INTENTIONALLY looked bad, last night. Pasty foundation, no mascara, no lipstick, no eyeshadow, eyebrows washed out and uncolored, no blush, etc...her hair is a greasy, flat mess.

WHAT THEATER THIS IS!

Why are they trying to convince us she is a wreck?

Because she's not. Everything is going according to plan. I swear that's how I see this.

Then they want armed revolt because that's what they will be courting.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Then they want armed revolt because that's what they will be courting.

They want civil unrest.

I am not sure how far it would really go still. But you better believe they know how far it would go -- because they have collected all the data and have done all the forecasting.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

They think they do. I still don't think they anticipated that Trump would win. This is the Plan B.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MotherMayEye

They think they do. I still don't think they anticipated that Trump would win. This is the Plan B.

If we are still in Plan A, though, and THIS is the intended election result BUT Hillary (or someone else besides Trump) still wins...and all of that is Plan A...

...we are in for a world of sh*t.

That means the control they have -- in our election systems, Congress, & justice system -- is far greater than most people ever considered seriously.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If they're really going to flip the script with these faithless electors, they really are (or should be) anticipating at least some sort of armed uprising.

Not to mention the right wing loons, because let's face it, both sides have their fanatics.

I think it would get the notice of the militias and some in the military.

I could foresee a fair number of intel agents spilling certain, even more damning, information to wikileaks.

High velocity feces hitting a turbojet.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Maybe that's what they want.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You know, it even makes sense when you consider the pumping up of Hillary that was done by her campaign. They just knew it was a sure thing. Even when Hillary's boot lickers were denying the crooked ways of the Clinton campaign, they were secretly nodding amongst themselves that the first female president was a shoe in because of all the rigging.

They were proud of Hillary for playing the game and beating the men at it by being the most crooked of the bunch.

And then election night hit and everyone (of her supporters) was left hanging...

...

...

And so of course there would be a HUGE emotional reaction. That was Hillary's only push the entire time was emotion and so that is what she built up in her followers. She's very effective at the slow cadenced speech full of NLP tricks to get the unwary to nod along in agreement to their own doom with a mooncalf smile on their face the whole time.

So the left has had it's hissy fit.

The right is having a different experience right now and would have a similar emotional shock if faithless electors attempted to put Hillary in or if congress attempted to nullify the electoral vote through the process you described.

The right's hissy fit would look entirely different from the one the left just pulled.

Us who are stuck in the middle would be hard pressed to avoid being caught up in the tempest that would result if something unexpected (by everyone except those of us who will entertain the idea) were to happen this far into the process of national acceptance of president Trump.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I can't help but feel that all of this is staged. Something really nasty in cooking on the back burner. When you start connecting the dots, and some of the dots go back for years, the emerging picture is not pretty, in fact, it is downright ugly.

We are circling the drain and the momentum is increasing so fast that if we don't pull ourselves free, we will be trapped in the eddy.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Ok, let's play this out...

Say they pull some kind of fast one and shift Hillary in with electoral shenanigans.

The cities in which anti-Trump riots would be ecstatic that their 'protesting' saved the day...

The rural folk would feel royally effed over.

And not even ALL cities went Hillary, but if you look at the map county by county, there are only a few islands of blue in a sea of red.

The entire state of Oklahoma went Trump.

And then you have all the registered voters who didn't vote.

I think that would get their attention and cause an even greater tightening of the constriction those islands of blue would feel.

At worse I see them invalidating Trump and putting Pence in since he is VP elect.

I can't see them risking utter chaos across the country. The United States isn't Europe. It's much larger geographical area and there is still a lot of open land between population centers.

They'd be surrounded.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

We'll find out more tomorrow if they even might dare to do this, now.

Tomorrow is the hearing on the request for delay.

Liberals live in KY and IN...and they never get a say in any election, pretty much. It's not enough to even inspire them to move to a blue state let alone 'rise up' and revolt.

Don't underestimate how complacent we are, too. There may be some civil unrest, but I don't see a revolution or utter chaos happening necessarily.

I'd like to be wrong about that.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

She INTENTIONALLY looked bad, last night. Pasty foundation, no mascara, no lipstick, no eyeshadow, eyebrows washed out and uncolored, no blush, etc...her hair is a greasy, flat mess.

Why not let her have it.

She's been put through hell, but she still came.