Of course. They’re way more likely to get anti trump jurors there.I mean come on. Trying cases in super liberal ATL, DC, and NYC were not an accident.
Of course. They’re way more likely to get anti trump jurors there.I mean come on. Trying cases in super liberal ATL, DC, and NYC were not an accident.
You are really hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen. How is that relevant to the fraud charges? How would that lie have been used for fraud?If I were on the jury, beyond reasonable doubt would mean they’d have to have more than a few credible witnesses hear him say first hand to the contrary of what Trump has said publicly. He’s been very consistent that the election was stolen.
Ask the government. Did you read the indictment?You are really hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen. How is that relevant to the fraud charges? How would that lie have been used for fraud?
He's really hung up on telling you that you are hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen.Ask the government. Did you read the indictment?
That’s no proof at all. I wouldn’t call it an unlawful act. Saying Trump had no case is not the same thing as saying he broke the law. That’s the mistake the TDS’ers are making. They want it to be illegal. And now it is.
I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.Somehow Trump’s attorneys thought it was a viable legal theory. Making sure there’s no doubt seems like a reasonable action if that’s true. And if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged.
The FBI will be showing up soon.I thought questioning elections was anti-democratic?
I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.
The thing is that Eastman who came up with it wasn't so confident in that legal theory because according to J6 testimony he reportedly acknowledged to others in private that SCOTUS would most likely shoot it down.
Another possibility was if the EC vote was below 270 then the vote would go to the house for state delegations to vote…I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.
The thing is that Eastman who came up with it wasn't so confident in that legal theory because according to J6 testimony he reportedly acknowledged to others in private that SCOTUS would most likely shoot it down.
That's funny. I was thinking the same thing. At least I'm not the only one.Sometimes, while reading this thread, my head begins to hurt.
Well, that's because it wasIf I were on the jury, beyond reasonable doubt would mean they’d have to have more than a few credible witnesses hear him say first hand to the contrary of what Trump has said publicly. He’s been very consistent that the election was stolen.
FixyGo take a coupleTylenol{Abelour 12's] and lay down.
THIS... "if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged."Somehow Trump’s attorneys thought it was a viable legal theory. Making sure there’s no doubt seems like a reasonable action if that’s true. And if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged.
THIS... "if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged."
And those that believe/believed Pence to have the power the ****can the elector certifications from several states on January 6, 2021... also MUST believe that Harris has that same power come January 2025.
Right?
Or would be limited. So Joe Biden loses the election to Trump, now a felon. Right away Kamala files to question the constitutionality of the law because it prevents her from choosing a slate of electors who will vote for Biden over the ones duly certified who would have voted for the other guy. The court hears the case and ultimately finds for the plaintiff, not because the law was actually unconstitutional, but because 5 justices, the four ideologues want the democrats to be in power, plus Roberts, who ruled for the plaintiff because he thought that a felon POTUS would be icky.STANDING. New law likely cannot be challenged until a VP is limited if their duties. There are many unconstitutional laws in place…