Things They Say

Garmel said:
A legal theory that has been used by dems for decades. Do you remember the video I showed Cajun of all the dems using it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4hzhxFE4g&t=23s

The alternate electors and the House members who asked the VP to do this were not indicted. In fact, many of the House members were lawyers and you didn't hear a peep from any of the state bars, did you?

How can it be a a legal theory that Eastman invented when he had a law scholar testify at his trial that it is real and so many dems have used it in the past?

I hope Eastman doesn't have to go to the SCOTUS to get justice. That's time and money. Perhaps Eastman will get lucky and the judge here will just suspend him instead of disbarment but I'm not expecting that.
Click to expand...



I really dont understand how you think that video helps your case. Show me one Congressmen who was charged with a crime for raising their objection? VP Biden shut down each and every one because they were improper because an objection has to be in writing and signed by a member of the House and Senate. Even if they were properly conducted it would have resulted in the Senate and House convening for 2 hours to discuss what to do and requires a 2/3rds majority of both sides to do anything. That the is the legal process and some Republicans did file proper objections in writing signed by a House and Senate member and following the rules the Senate and House convened to discuss the issue. No 2/3rds majority was even close in either side so nothing changed. WHO WAS CHARGED WITH A CRIME FOR THAT? The law is clear that Congress meets on January 6th and certifies the vote. There is nothing anywhere that says the VP can unilaterally decide to send certified votes back to the states to re-certify. It would require an entirely new interpretation of the word "shall" to mean that any law that doesnt specifically say you cant do something means you can do it. Which would be the largest expansion of government power in US history. The second amendment says the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms but it doesnt say the government cant limit that bearing of arms to water pistols. Thats a real slipperly slope I dont think you really want to go down.
 
Is "lol" the name of a Rep Congressman charged with a crime for raising an objection during the certification? You cry that Dem Congressman arent charged with a crime for doing the same thing Rep Congressmen werent charged with a crime for doing all you want. Only makes you look like a clown.
 
Is "lol. You cant make this **** up." the name of the Rep Congressman charged with a crime for objecting to the vote the same way the Dem Congressmen did that you say werent charged with a crime?
 
You posted a video of Democrat House members raising objections during the certification of electoral votes and asked why they werent indicted. So I am simply asking which Republican Congressmen did the same that were indicted. You also referenced alternate electors. I dont know of any alternate electors in 2016 so I assume you mean the Hawaii alternate electors who had the Governors certification as well as a Judge's order that the states electoral votes go to Kennedy legitimizing them.
 
cajunrevenge said:
You posted a video of Democrat House members raising objections during the certification of electoral votes and asked why they werent indicted. So I am simply asking which Republican Congressmen did the same that were indicted. You also referenced alternate electors. I dont know of any alternate electors in 2016 so I assume you mean the Hawaii alternate electors who had the Governors certification as well as a Judge's order that the states electoral votes go to Kennedy legitimizing them.
Click to expand...

They had the alternate electors there. This video has to do with the 2016 election.

The point I'm making is:

1) Why weren't the alternate electors indicted?

2) Why weren't the House members who were mostly lawyers indicted and disbarred for trying to overturn the 2016 election? They were the ones asking Biden to acknowledge the alternate electors.

3) This group of "election deniers" got further than Trump's team did. They actually got to the podium and asked the VP to acknowledge these alternate electors. Biden said no.

It's because what they did was legal or at least thought to be legal at the time.
 
1 - What is the name of these alternate electors in 2016? And did they submit certification certificates to the National Archives claiming to be the lawful electors?


2 - Because there is a legal process to raise objections during the certification of the vote.


3-



Here is the certification of the vote in 2016 election. I have watched it in its entirety before. Please tell me at what time in this video what you are talking about takes place.



There is nothing illegal about denying the results of the election. It is however a crime to submit fraudulent certificates to the National Archive claiming to be the lawful electors when you are not. If Trump and Eastman had only asked Pence to take an action that is not a crime. However, it did not stop when they were told "No I cant do that its illegal". They engaged in an intimidation campaign against Pence and members of Congress that resulted in a riot sending mentally deranged lunatics after Pence and Congress. They asked the heads of the DoJ to make fraudulent statements in order to deceive the public and elected officials about voter fraud. They made false statements to the public and elected officials that even if they truly believed had no evidence to back up but stated as if they were proven facts. Its really the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and then trying to use defenses like "well I thought there was a fire", "someone lit a cigarette which is technically a small fire", and "how can you possibly prove there wasnt a fire in some movie theater somewhere". Trump is the only one charged in the DC case. If you really need the Georgia indictment explained to you I can do that but thats a whole different issue.
 
You say that like Chauvin isnt a convicted murderer doing a long time in prison and most of the Whitmer terrorists are in prison. And I will remind you that in the Russian Collusion case Trumps campaign manager was secretly meeting with a Russian spy who he was giving internal campaign polling data and lied about it repeatedly. Theres also Don Jr attending a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. You have Trump coordinating the timing releases of dirt with wikileaks who may or may not have involvement with Russia. Theres a whole lot of smoke regarding Trump and Russia regardless of whether you want to admit it or direct evidence of collusion being found. I also remind you that everyone charged in that investigation was convicted and no charges were filed against Trump.



You did however cheer on the Durham witch hunt that was laughed out of court. You did cheer on the Hillary FBI investigation during the campaign which may have swung the election in Trumps favor. Trumps also filed probably a hundred frivolous lawsuits which counts as lawfare by your definition, You cheer on the prosecution of Hunter Biden despite his alledged crime of lying about being addicted to a drug on his gun application being ruled unconstitutional recently. So dont pretend like you dont love you some lawfare, and to be clear I am using your definition of lawfare not mine.
 
Durham witch hunt? The one where he had evidence that the guy lied right there in his hands with a document and where Sussman billed Clinton for that job?

If those were examples of Russian Collusion why didn't Mueller declare there was collusion? Manafort didn't go down for collusion. He gave polling data that was mostly public to a supposed agent of Russia. How was he supposed to know if the guy was an agent? iI you went after any administration you would find examples of them interacting with the Russians.

According to my recollection I didn't cheer on the gun crime. I thought it was a distraction from bigger crimes.

Chauvin is innocent and the autopsy results proved it. He had to go down for the narrative.

Half of the Whitmer people were found not guilty and the rest will be freed in time. The FBI ran the whole operation and most people understand this was entrapment. You complain about cops doing unethical things to people and here is a prime example of it but you ignore it because the right people were put away. However, you still think a terrorist who shot a cop in Atlanta was innocent.
 
Last edited:
"The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances." Dan Scavino

yikes

"but that's not the way it works." JE

"We don't care." DS

Trump supporters..."We don't care."
 
Runnin said:
"The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances." Dan Scavino

yikes

"but that's not the way it works." JE

"We don't care." DS

Trump supporters..."We don't care."
Click to expand...

Well even if this was said - Nonsense trash grifter lawyer word means nothing.

Since the election was clearly stolen he would be doing a service for America by staying and keeping the criminal regime that currently occupies the White house out.
 
How many of Trumps own lawyers are testifying against him and you people claim to not beleive a single one of them. Yet you believe every crackhead who makes an accusation about Joe Biden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top