D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

a reply to: matafuchs

Did those electors submit paperwork to the federal governemny claiming they were the duly selected electors?

a reply to: Threadbarer

No. Because the SCOTUS stepped in and handed the election to Bush. Stop asking questions that have no answer. It gets old.

Now, did Democrats attempt the same thing in 2000, 2004 and 2016? In each of those elections they opposed the electoral count. Right? If they did that they would need alternate, not fake, electors ready

a reply to: matafuchs

There's no laws that stop faithless electors from casting votes for a different candidate. There are laws against filling fraudulent paperwork with the government.

It seems the GOP wants indite biden for crimes....couldn't he just claim presidential immunity like trump?

originally posted by: lilzazz
It seems the GOP wants indite biden for crimes....couldn't he just claim presidential immunity like trump?

He could do even better than that based on oral arguments given before the DC Court of Appeals. He could just have his political rivals murdered and then have the Senate acquit him during an impeachment. No harm no foul.

I like this new Murica, it's kinda wild west-y.

originally posted by: norhoc4
a reply to: Threadbarer

What actions? That he told supporters to peacefully protest? That he told supporters not to attack police officers? That he told people to stop and go home?

He also told the crowd to march down there and "fight like hell"....


www.rollingstone.com...


www.bostonglobe.com...

a reply to: Threadbarer

Wasn't talking about faithless electors....but since you brought it up...when was the last time that happened and you had Congresspeople and other elected officials telling electors to flip..and you know that happened. No insurrection there since it was against Trump and they were interfering with government proceedings.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Because if the state chooses those electors they are not "fake" and each state has plenary powers to choose those electors.

The State chose. Then some nudniks got together in secret and attested that they were the real electors. Except they were, you know, fake.

Good luck with that.

D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

Weren't some of those on the DC court of appeals, appointed by trump?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2


Excellent post. Flooding the courts with cases against Citizen Clinton, Citizen Obama, Citizen Bush - that would be a great place to start responding to this utter BULL#.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Did those electors submit paperwork to the federal governemny claiming they were the duly selected electors?

Yup...they did . thats not fraud since the state, because of their plenary powers, cannot be induced to choose them.

SCOTUS grants cert on an expedited schedule. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 22.

The fact that the case is expedited leads me to think SCOTUS is trying to have a ruling before the end of the current session in June. If that's the case, the DC case can still go to trial before the election.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Why do you want it before the election......?

a reply to: JinMI

Why would you want it after the election?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Why do you want it before the election?


Is there an echo in here?

a reply to: JinMI

Because the voting populace deserves to know as much as they can about a candidate in order to make an informed decision when they go to the polls.

Why do you want the trial you be delayed until after the election?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Because the voting populace deserves to know as much as they can about a candidate in order to make an informed decision when they go to the polls.

Do you then think all of these prosecutions and the corruption behind those doing the prosecution aren't taken into account?

Why do you want the trial you be delayed until after the election?

I wouldn't used delayed. I would use precedent and due process.

Plus the immunity issue should definitely be adjudicated.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Donald Trump is in the paper more than ANYONE on the F'N planet. How can you with a straight face say people need to know.

No one who voted for him in 2020 gives 2 #es about this case.

How long did the E Carroll case take? 3-4 years? So, you think a case about supposed classified information needs to be rushed? They do not want to show character they want another byline with a conviction...and sentence.

This is a case with major fallout and precedence.

a reply to: matafuchs

The talking points were clearly released:

Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear. Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS should decide this case promptly.

Link

D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

Ironic that a lot of the judges ruling against trump were appointed by him.

Is it a matter of loyalty or actually following the law?

www.newsweek.com...