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

a reply to: matafuchs

You're aware that much of the White House staff remains been administrations, right? That's a lot of potential witnesses that could have heard or seen something. There's also the fact that the White House may be in possession of documents that might aid an investigation.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Who? These two are banging in GA and taking trips. They have no clue. They are being directed

So tell me..who is still in the White House that is going to testify about their time in office with Trump?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
nypost.com...

That doesn't give him the authority to offer 'alternate (fake)' slates of electors. So solly.

The problem is they wenrt "fake" electors because there cant be "fake" electors...

Why?

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

We could all sign our names to a paper saying we are the electors and if the state chose us then we are the electors

There is no such thing as "fake" electors

a reply to: Another_Nut

There is when the state does not select a slate of electors but that slate goes ahead and files paperwork with Congress and the Achivist as if they were.

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is just not true.

If me and you say we are the electors and the state chooses to select us as the electors then we are, in fact, the appointed elextors

See since the state has plenary powers when it come to their electors ANY electors they appoint are legit.

Me, you, fred, it doesnt matter . Since there is no way to make the state choose us ,because they have the sole authority to choose their electors, then there is no way to have "fake" electors

a reply to: Another_Nut

I've posted the Michigan election laws previously to use that state as an example. There is a whole process to be a duly elected elector. There is record of those electors. The Secretary of State has the names and addresses of the elected electors.

In Michigan they were not the duly elected electors. And a few were random people the GOP leaders lied to, to get them there to agree and sign after others refused, as the people who have already pled guilty have stated.

a reply to: Another_Nut

What do we call someone that claims to be something that they're not?

a reply to: frogs453

Ok let me try this.. because this seems to be a hard concept for people to get. Sooo....

In nov there is an election

The state takes those election results and chooses electors

That same day me you and fred send a paper saying we are the duly elected electors

Now which of us are the legit electors?

The answer is

"Whichever the state decides"

If they pick us then we are the duly elected electors even if those electon results are thrown out for no reason

Because the state can never be "tricked" into appointing the "wrong" electors then there can never be "fake" electors

Any electors the state chooses are duly elected electors

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Another_Nut

What do we call someone that claims to be something that they're not?

A progressive

a reply to: Another_Nut

The state law states:

the governor shall certify, under the seal of the state, to the United States secretary of state, the names and addresses of the electors of this state chosen as electors of president and vice-president of the United States. The governor shall also transmit to each elector chosen as an elector for president and vice-president of the United States a certificate, in triplicate, under the seal of the state, of his or her election.

Only those people are the "duly elected electors".


Per the state law, those electors convene in the state Capitol to sign the certificate of ascertainment.

The electors of president and vice-president shall convene in the senate chamber at the capitol of the state at 2 p.m., eastern standard time, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election.

They do not meet in the GOP headquarters and sign a certificate of ascertainment given to them by the lawyer of the sitting President who lost the election.

You can try to spin and try make it seem like it's legitimate though.

Michigan Election Law pdf.

a reply to: frogs453

Do you understand what "plenary" means?

Eta

Are we now saying that going against your own state constitution is bad?

Because i believe many here were defending the ability for states to ignore their constitutional election requirements
(See texas case)

Again, states have plenary powers to appoint whoever they want and whoever they appoint is the duly elected skate of electors.

Nothing you say will ever change that fact.

There can be no "fraud" or "fake electors" or anything

BECAUSE THE STATE IS THE SOLE SELECTOR OF ELECTORS

Eeta

Lets take what you posted ..

Now lets say we didnt follow those steps but the state chooses us anyways

Are we the duly appointed electors?

a reply to: Another_Nut

Let's break this down into steps.

1.) Election occurs.
2.) State selects their electors.
3.) At the same time a group of people not selected by the state convene and sign paperwork declaring themselves the electors that were selected by the state.
4.) The people in step 3 then send that paperwork to Congress and the Archivist attesting they are the official slate of electors for their state.

Now, if the people from step 2 are the official electors, what does that make the people from step 3, who are claiming to be the people from step 2 even though they are not?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Now lets take your example one step further....


What if the state chooses those people from step3 and says they are going to be the electors

Is the state wrong? And are those people the dult selected electors?

a reply to: Another_Nut

The state didn't appoint the slate of fake electors.

a reply to: Another_Nut

I knew you would spin. These people, including the guy who signed who went to church with one of the GOP members were not the duly elected electors as noted in the Michigan State Election laws, nor did they follow the state election laws in regard to the signing of the ascertainment. Nor was the ascertainment provided to them by the process noted in the law.

Bottom line. Fraud. Of which in Michigan they are being charged with.

a reply to: Another_Nut

The state didn't select the people from step 3. That's the problem. They were not duly appointed by the state but they filed paperwork with the federal government claiming they were.

If a someone attempts to practice medicine without the proper qualifications they are a fake doctor.

If someone attempts to act as an elector without the proper qualifications they are a fake elector.

a reply to: Threadbarer

you are avoiding the question because you know the answer... so ...

if the stare decided to throw out their election results and thir constitution and selected the people from step 3

would they be the duly selected electors?

a reply to: frogs453

there can be no fraud because there can be no inducement to an adverse action...

because plenary

added video because many of you are destiny... and wrong..

Title III of the U.S. federal code says if electors have not been chosen by the deadline - set as December 12 under a separate federal law - the electors may be appointed by legislatures, again in any way they choose. Another section of the same law says that the legislature may appoint electors through laws passed before the December 12 deadline.

Remember Bush-Gore in 2000. Gore had alternate electors ready. Why was he not charged?

After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results.

Link

The election was stolen and pushed through. End of Story.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Wow! You better reach out to the attorneys on these cases. I believe 3 have already pled guilty, and the rest sure don't appear to be using that defense.

Crazy how ATS has better attorneys than Trump and all the various GOP members. ATS always insists they know a better defense than the actual attorneys on the case.