Trump Indictment Watch

nsacpi said:
The courts are the forum for adjudicating disputes in close elections. This happened in 2000. We have a process. Not perfect. But there is no need to delve into unconstitutional methods.
Click to expand...

The process never contemplated millions of illlegal mail in ballots that weren’t allowed to be verified.
 
thethe said:
After investigation absolutely. I’m not going to rubber stamp an election that was stolen. Nobody should want they. This wasn’t just a normal election and treating it as such is a massive mistake.
Click to expand...

You don't see any potential problems with VP Biden blocking an R election victory and handing the investigation over to Nancy Pelosi?
 
thethe said:
The process never contemplated millions of illlegal mail in ballots that weren’t allowed to be verified.
Click to expand...
Actually this issue has been adjudicated. In multiple states. Multiple times. Maybe you didn't like the outcome but it is not correct to say the courts did not address it.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually this issue has been adjudicated. In multiple states. Multiple times. Maybe you didn't like the outcome but it is not correct to say the courts did not address it.
Click to expand...

The outcome was not deliberated in the legislative body where it should have been. We’ve gone over this several times.
 
sturg33 said:
You don't see any potential problems with VP Biden blocking an R election victory and handing the investigation over to Nancy Pelosi?
Click to expand...

It’s an investigation to the states. Then with that information it’s debated in congress and each states reps would vote based on that information and final vote Talley.


A mechanism needs to exist to stop a stolen election
 
thethe said:
The outcome was not deliberated in the legislative body where it should have been. We’ve gone over this several times.
Click to expand...

We just had a Supreme Court ruling about the relative roles of state legislatures, election officials and courts in these matters.
 
Btw a proper canvassing would provide comfort to the existence of willing voters and that could be done in two weeks. But the democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent that.
 
thethe said:
It’s an investigation to the states. Then with that information it’s debated in congress and each states reps would vote based on that information and final vote Talley.


A mechanism needs to exist to stop a stolen election
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't that process be the states electors?
 
sturg33 said:
Why shouldn't that process be the states electors?
Click to expand...

Oh I’m fine with that. Then there needs to be formalized audit procedures to establish existence and not just have a show by doing recounts.

Something has to happen to validate the complex system we have.
 
It is worth noting that very poorly chosen one and his campaign vigorously availed themselves of legal avenues for challenging the outcome. 86 different judges made rulings against their claims of imperfections in how the elections were conducted. From lowly local judges to the Supreme Court. Quite a few were appointed by the man himself. 86 judges ruled against him. That's how it works. You make your case in an adversarial judicial system. If he had been satisfied with that he wouldn't have to go through his arraignment today.
 
nsacpi said:
It is worth noting that very poorly chosen one and his campaign vigorously availed themselves of legal avenues for challenging the outcome. 86 different judges made rulings against their claims of imperfections in how the elections were conducted. From lowly local judges to the Supreme Court. Quite a few were appointed by the man himself. 86 judges ruled against him. That's how it works. You make your case in an adversarial judicial system. If he had been satisfied with that he wouldn't have to go through his arraignment today.
Click to expand...

You know that a small portion even discussed the merits of the case. IT was all procedural nonsense that makes it almost impossible to even challenge an election.

Its these types of lies that will be outed in front of the world during the trial.

Massive mistake by the communists.
 
thethe said:
You know that a small portion even discussed the merits of the case.
Click to expand...

True. In many cases the lawyers chose not to make claims that they knew were false. The judicial system has a system of sanctions against lawyers who knowingly put false information in their filings. For this reason lawyers were not willing to repeat what they were claiming on Fox when it came time to make a judicial filing. Can't say I blame them. They wanted to hold on to their ability to practice their profession.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
True. In many cases the lawyers chose not to make claims that they knew were false. The judicial system has a system of sanctions against lawyers who do that. For this reason lawyers were not willing to repeat what they were claiming on Fox when it came time to make a judicial filing. Can't say I blame them. They want to hold on to their ability to practice their profession.
Click to expand...

No - In many cases the arguments weren't even heard because of 'standing' issues which doesn't address the real issues which was the stolen election.

A lawyer makes a claim on their clients behalf. You think lawyers have never defended someone they thought was guilty?

Plus - How does one know a claim of election fraud is false? Did someone formally audit the votes and ensure they were legal voters who actually intended on voting? Please elaborate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top