NWO/Illuminati US politics

[bourbons]

I don't need your self serving SRP quotes that had nothing to do with reports Killary is going to run again.

You spelled 'pertinent' wrong. Democrats are always either competent master manipulators or braindead bumbling stooges, as required, for whatever narrative you're pushing that day ¯\(ツ)/¯

John Eastman was the lawyer who gave Trump advice on the VP being able to not accept electoral college votes and Atlantic and Bill Marh were jsut reporting what the Demcorata were saying. There are mnay exemples of the VP being petitoned to do this and it being successful a couple of times.

False. Here's the Atlantic article;

Kamala Harris Might Have to Stop the Steal

Constitutional scholars are already worrying about another January 6 crisis, and they warn that the next election might be harder to save.

www.theatlantic.com

In addition to not actually arguing what you're pretending it does and that Harris should not certify (rather, it speculates on any powers Harris may have to stop shennanigans subverting democracy from newly installed Trump loyalists and new laws making it easier to challenge and discount votes at the state level), there is precisely 0 talk or argument from any elected democrats supporting this, nor any 2nd hand reporting of such. You've completely invented that - colour me surprised

I asked Harris’s office how she viewed her role and whether she had, more than three years in advance, received briefings on her authority in those scenarios. “Vice President Harris will always fulfill the constitutional duties of the office,” Sabrina Singh, a spokesperson for Harris, replied. “We learned in 2020 that the most important principle in our democracy is that voters, not partisan politicians, choose the president.”

And so many examples that you can't provide a single link confirming one? rofl

If you just search for 24,000 votes and my name in this thread I've already had this conversation with you and one of your circle before from the one hour recorded conversation with Trump and his lawyers. #6759

Recounting counterfeit votes only gives counterfeit results. GA had 150,000 to 250,000 ballots dropped into the count, mostly in Fulton County that had to be adjudicated. The counter keeps these and puts all batches in together gives their opinion who the ballot is to go to. Only the ballot images of the adjudicated ballot is checked which is against Federal Law, but he has no answer for that only offering they recounted and it was the same.

Looks like you're relying on a 4minute expect from the over one hour phone call. Trumps lawyers were clear;

KURT (Trump's legal team): "There were four categories with over 24,000 votes that were counted illegally. We’d like to sit down with your office to look at these numbers and compare them with what you have. We’ve had these numbers looked at by four separate sets of experts who’ve confirmed them. Based on verified and Secretary Of State (SOS) data. Will you sit down with us and go through registered voter ID and registration and if you can convince us that those numbers are wrong, that’s fine."

That was refused even when Trump lawyers offered to be deputized to the SOS to work together to compare lists. Trumps lawyers compared around 5000 dead from official data 4,502 voters voted but weren’t on the voter registration role, 18,325 voters with no address, but the rolls had not been updated and these people recorded votes.

Then after the election from the report of over 100,000 voters link provided "18,000 were removed because they have died,” the report noted. Straight out lie to say there was only 2 dead people that voted, because he never allowed an audit.

There was thousands of illegal votes found in AZ which were counted and certified.

Yes that Navarro report which I doubt you've even read and only rely on what you're told.

Your prior postings on the issue are the same as these recent ones. You've stated many times there were 24,000 illegal votes, but have never once provided any corroboration besides the word of Trump's lawyers - you can't, because none exists. Oh, except for the 4 sets of anonymous experts they assure us totally confirm it, of course. And you just unquestionaly believe this stuff, while accusing others of "only relying on what you're told?" Jesus christ, mate

I mean with such an obvious, ironclad, open and shut case of illegal votes, once the gracious offer from Team Trump to deputise them and go through it all was refused - why didn't they have this stuff in court so fast it would make the SOS's head spin? Any thoughts?

"Recounting counterfeit votes only gives counterfeit results" - AZ, forensic audit, say it with me. No counterfeit ballots, no fraud.

 

[bourbons]

Yeah, we should rely on information from Trump’s doolally lawyers, led by that luminary Rudolf Giuliani. Their information would be beyond reproach. It’s not like they had a horse in the race.

Incredible innit? Trump's legal team assures us... well, thats good enough for me, this is all obviously rock solid stuff

 

[bourbons]

edit: deleted, wrong thread

 

[BlueE]

You spelled 'pertinent' wrong. Democrats are always either competent master manipulators or braindead bumbling stooges, as required, for whatever narrative you're pushing that day ¯\(ツ)/¯

False. Here's the Atlantic article;

Kamala Harris Might Have to Stop the Steal

Constitutional scholars are already worrying about another January 6 crisis, and they warn that the next election might be harder to save.

www.theatlantic.com

In addition to not actually arguing what you're pretending it does and that Harris should not certify (rather, it speculates on any powers Harris may have to stop shennanigans subverting democracy from newly installed Trump loyalists and new laws making it easier to challenge and discount votes at the state level), there is precisely 0 talk or argument from any elected democrats supporting this, nor any 2nd hand reporting of such. You've completely invented that - colour me surprised

And so many examples that you can't provide a single link confirming one? rofl

Your prior postings on the issue are the same as these recent ones. You've stated many times there were 24,000 illegal votes, but have never once provided any corroboration besides the word of Trump's lawyers - you can't, because none exists. Oh, except for the 4 sets of anonymous experts they assure us totally confirm it, of course. And you just unquestionaly believe this stuff, while accusing others of "only relying on what you're told?" Jesus christ, mate

I mean with such an obvious, ironclad, open and shut case of illegal votes, once the gracious offer from Team Trump to deputise them and go through it all was refused - why didn't they have this stuff in court so fast it would make the SOS's head spin? Any thoughts?

"Recounting counterfeit votes only gives counterfeit results" - AZ, forensic audit, say it with me. No counterfeit ballots, no fraud.

No, your SRP quote that you insisted on posting had nothing to do with what I posted so keep the jecrk in the circle please.

Wasn't just Trump's lawyers, they used the States own official data.

Trump's Lawyer, Kurt; "There were four categories with over 24,000 votes that were counted illegally. We’d like to sit down with your office to look at these numbers and compare them with what you have. We’ve had these numbers looked at by four separate sets of experts who’ve confirmed them. Based on verified and Secretary Of State (SoS) data. Will you sit down with us and go through registered voter ID and registration and if you can convince us that those numbers are wrong, that’s fine?"

This number included around 5000 dead from official data deaths records, 4,502 voters voted but weren’t on the voter registration role, 18,325 voters with no address, when Trump only lost by around 11,000 votes.

This request was refused. Yet months later Georgia found over 100,000 potential illegal voters including those who'd moved, dead or had no address. And now an investigation has been opened to look into thousands of ballots illegally harvested in GA. All good nothing to see here!

Just becasue they refused to check their fraudulent rolls against SoS official data supplied by Trump of fraudulent votes you justify parroting there was no fraud. They refused to look. All of the voting irregularities caused GA to not agree on the Governor certification and put forward dueling electoral votes for the Jan 6 count.

Good find getting that Atlantic article, becasue I thought it'd been scrubbed and seems to be heavily shadow banned but what's false? John Eastman not being the lawyer giving legal advice on the power of VP or you disagree that the Atlantic are now saying VP Harris will have to use those same powers Pence refused to??

They say Harris has the power to reject "ungrounded challenges" to state certifications as Pence did. Pence had seven States with dueling electors and two that Congress formally objected to, but evidence to whether these challenges were ungrounded or not was not allowed.

"the Democratic majority in the House served as an extra backstop. When Trump backers in Congress formally objected to the certifications of Arizona and Pennsylvania—two states that Biden won—the House voted down the objections even though a majority of Republicans supported them."

They say this won't be the case in 2024 because they expect a majority of R to be voted in mid term and there will be a R majority in the house and the scenario Eastman described "ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provides instructions to Congress for resolving disputes, could lead to chaos when lawmakers meet to tally the results." could occur.

The laws they want to change is to remove the VP power they say Pence never had, but suggest Harris will have to use to keep Democrats in power!

Should Trump or his acolytes try to subvert the 2024 election, the last Democrat with any power to stop the steal—or at least try to—would be Harris. “She’s certainly going to have quite a job on her hands on January 6, 2025,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and liberal constitutional scholar, told me. Nine months ago, Tribe and other Democrats praised Pence for interpreting his authority narrowly, but the next time around, they might ask Harris to wield the same gavel more forcefully.

Trump was relying on the advice of John Eastman, a conservative law professor and attorney “There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes ... and all the Members of Congress can do is watch,” Eastman wrote.

Eastman outlined several scenarios that would lead to Trump’s reelection and twice cited as validation the work of Tribe, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and was part of then–Vice President Al Gore’s legal team after the contested 2000 election.

Tribe told me that Eastman’s argument was “ludicrous,” but they did agree on one point: Every four years on January 6, the vice president is not powerless. “I don’t think we can argue that Kamala Harris has absolute authority,” Tribe said. “On the other hand, she is not simply a figurehead.” Harris’s principal role during the Joint Session, he said, could be to reject “ungrounded challenges” to state certifications.

She may have other powers, he said, but he refused to discuss them with me. “I don’t want to lay out a complete road map for the other side, because I think sometimes they’re not as smart as they think they are,” he said.

the Democratic majority in the House served as an extra backstop. When Trump backers in Congress formally objected to the certifications of Arizona and Pennsylvania—two states that Biden won—the House voted down the objections even though a majority of Republicans supported them.

Without new legislation clarifying the Electoral Count Act, advocates worry, the January 6 session could devolve into a messy battle of parliamentary maneuvers. “The current language of the statute leaves too much room for uncertainty regarding the vice president’s responsibilities,” wrote members of the National Task Force on Election Crises, a bipartisan coalition formed ahead of the 2020 election.

Members of Congress could call for votes to overrule any decisions that Harris makes, or, as Eastman suggested in his memo, the vice president could try to declare a winner without any vote at all. Either way, the legitimate outcome of the presidential election would remain disputed, and the losing party would be left to take their fight to the Supreme Court or, worse, out into the streets.

Kamala Harris Might Have to Stop the Steal

Constitutional scholars are already worrying about another January 6 crisis, and they warn that the next election might be harder to save.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Crankitup]

 

[Crankitup]

 

[bourbons]

Wasn't just Trump's lawyers, they used the States own official data.

Trump's Lawyer, Kurt; "There were four categories with over 24,000 votes that were counted illegally. We’d like to sit down with your office to look at these numbers and compare them with what you have. We’ve had these numbers looked at by four separate sets of experts who’ve confirmed them. Based on verified and Secretary Of State (SoS) data. Will you sit down with us and go through registered voter ID and registration and if you can convince us that those numbers are wrong, that’s fine?"

This number included around 5000 dead from official data deaths records, 4,502 voters voted but weren’t on the voter registration role, 18,325 voters with no address, when Trump only lost by around 11,000 votes.

This request was refused. Yet months later Georgia found over 100,000 potential illegal voters including those who'd moved, dead or had no address. And now an investigation has been opened to look into thousands of ballots illegally harvested in GA. All good nothing to see here!

Just becasue they refused to check their fraudulent rolls against SoS official data supplied by Trump of fraudulent votes you justify parroting there was no fraud. They refused to look. All of the voting irregularities caused GA to not agree on the Governor certification and put forward dueling electoral votes for the Jan 6 count.

I'm "parroting there was no fraud" coz, unlike yourself, I don't take the untested accusations of Donald Trump as gospel. Rather, I tend to base such positions on established notions of evidentiary standards and proof, certainly when it comes to attempts to overturn an election. Utterly unthinkable isn't it

So I ask again - once "they refused to look", why wasn't this in court in 5 seconds flat? Seems like an iron-clad case?

Good find getting that Atlantic article, becasue I thought it'd been scrubbed and seems to be heavily shadow banned but what's false? John Eastman not being the lawyer giving legal advice on the power of VP or you disagree that the Atlantic are now saying VP Harris will have to use those same powers Pence refused to??

They say Harris has the power to reject "ungrounded challenges" to state certifications as Pence did. Pence had seven States with dueling electors and two that Congress formally objected to, but evidence to whether these challenges were ungrounded or not was not allowed.

"the Democratic majority in the House served as an extra backstop. When Trump backers in Congress formally objected to the certifications of Arizona and Pennsylvania—two states that Biden won—the House voted down the objections even though a majority of Republicans supported them."

They say this won't be the case in 2024 because they expect a majority of R to be voted in mid term and there will be a R majority in the house and the scenario Eastman described "ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provides instructions to Congress for resolving disputes, could lead to chaos when lawmakers meet to tally the results." could occur.

The laws they want to change is to remove the VP power they say Pence never had, but suggest Harris will have to use to keep Democrats in power!

Should Trump or his acolytes try to subvert the 2024 election, the last Democrat with any power to stop the steal—or at least try to—would be Harris. “She’s certainly going to have quite a job on her hands on January 6, 2025,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and liberal constitutional scholar, told me. Nine months ago, Tribe and other Democrats praised Pence for interpreting his authority narrowly, but the next time around, they might ask Harris to wield the same gavel more forcefully.

Trump was relying on the advice of John Eastman, a conservative law professor and attorney “There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes ... and all the Members of Congress can do is watch,” Eastman wrote.

Eastman outlined several scenarios that would lead to Trump’s reelection and twice cited as validation the work of Tribe, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and was part of then–Vice President Al Gore’s legal team after the contested 2000 election.

Tribe told me that Eastman’s argument was “ludicrous,” but they did agree on one point: Every four years on January 6, the vice president is not powerless. “I don’t think we can argue that Kamala Harris has absolute authority,” Tribe said. “On the other hand, she is not simply a figurehead.” Harris’s principal role during the Joint Session, he said, could be to reject “ungrounded challenges” to state certifications.

She may have other powers, he said, but he refused to discuss them with me. “I don’t want to lay out a complete road map for the other side, because I think sometimes they’re not as smart as they think they are,” he said.

the Democratic majority in the House served as an extra backstop. When Trump backers in Congress formally objected to the certifications of Arizona and Pennsylvania—two states that Biden won—the House voted down the objections even though a majority of Republicans supported them.

Without new legislation clarifying the Electoral Count Act, advocates worry, the January 6 session could devolve into a messy battle of parliamentary maneuvers. “The current language of the statute leaves too much room for uncertainty regarding the vice president’s responsibilities,” wrote members of the National Task Force on Election Crises, a bipartisan coalition formed ahead of the 2020 election.

Members of Congress could call for votes to overrule any decisions that Harris makes, or, as Eastman suggested in his memo, the vice president could try to declare a winner without any vote at all. Either way, the legitimate outcome of the presidential election would remain disputed, and the losing party would be left to take their fight to the Supreme Court or, worse, out into the streets.

Kamala Harris Might Have to Stop the Steal

Constitutional scholars are already worrying about another January 6 crisis, and they warn that the next election might be harder to save.

www.theatlantic.com

The false part is your assertion that the article is reporting on what "Democrats were saying" (#7300) re: this idea that Harris shouldn't certify the next election in the event of a loss, and that "Democrats have since twice said" (#7290) thats what she should do. The article says nothing of the sort - as I've mentioned, the article is a speculative piece musing about any powers Harris may have to stop undemocratic skullduggery from the GOP. There isn't a single elected democrat quoted or reported 2nd hand - you've invented this "democrats are saying" narrative out of thin air.

Still waiting on those examples of a VP being asked "many times" to not accept a State's EC votes and that power being enacted before (#7290).

 

[bourbons]

View attachment 1312127

Its just easier to get the Biden hologram working properly on a set than in the Oval
/lebbo

 

[Lebbo73]

I'm "parroting there was no fraud" coz, unlike yourself, I don't take the untested accusations of Donald Trump as gospel. Rather, I tend to base such positions on established notions of evidentiary standards and proof, certainly when it comes to attempts to overturn an election. Utterly unthinkable isn't it

So I ask again - once "they refused to look", why wasn't this in court in 5 seconds flat? Seems like an iron-clad case?


The false part is your assertion that the article is reporting on what "Democrats were saying" (#7300) re: this idea that Harris shouldn't certify the next election in the event of a loss, and that "Democrats have since twice said" (#7290) thats what she should do. The article says nothing of the sort - as I've mentioned, the article is a speculative piece musing about any powers Harris may have to stop undemocratic skullduggery from the GOP. There isn't a single elected democrat quoted or reported 2nd hand - you've invented this "democrats are saying" narrative out of thin air.

Still waiting on those examples of a VP being asked "many times" to not accept a State's EC votes and that power being enacted before (#7290).

Why would they interrupt an enemy that is in the process of destroying themselves?

 

[bourbons]

Why would they interrupt an enemy that is in the process of destroying themselves?

lol. So why even come out with the 24,000 illegal votes claim in the first place?

He'll still be posting this shtick in a decade with a completely straight face, as amazing as that is.

Literally nothing will drag him out of the rabbit hole at this point. He'll go to his grave disappointed that he couldn't hold on to see 'the awakening', the one perpetually just around the corner.

As amusing as your shtick always is, I'd still like to hear BlueE's take.

 

[BlueE]

lol. So why even come out with the 24,000 illegal votes claim in the first place?

As amusing as your shtick always is, I'd still like to hear BlueE's take.

Weird. Why are you quoting yourself?

No rabbit hole or Trump demanding votes be created for him.

When you listen to the call, what was being discussed at the moment Trump made that statement, was whether invalid votes had been cast for Biden. The Trump campaign claimed over 24,000 of invalid votes were counted under several factual scenarios, backed up by the SoS official documents when Biden's lead was 11,779.

It WAS the job of the Georgia Secretary of State to investigate claims of invalid votes having been cast. Trump was telling Raffensperger to go out and do his job, to investigate the claims of invalid Biden votes by comparing the SoS documents with his voting roll, not to create Trump votes. Through his lawyers Raffensperger refused, but is doing that, now.

You still haven't answered my question which I've asked twice.

Did the process of voting on Nov 3, 2020, incorporating the various aspects of vote-by-mail or other remote voting options adopted in various States, allow for a meaningful opportunity to AUDIT the vote process or vote counting prior to the meeting of the Electoral College?

 

[BlueE]

I'm "parroting there was no fraud" coz, unlike yourself, I don't take the untested accusations of Donald Trump as gospel. Rather, I tend to base such positions on established notions of evidentiary standards and proof, certainly when it comes to attempts to overturn an election. Utterly unthinkable isn't it

So I ask again - once "they refused to look", why wasn't this in court in 5 seconds flat? Seems like an iron-clad case?


The false part is your assertion that the article is reporting on what "Democrats were saying" (#7300) re: this idea that Harris shouldn't certify the next election in the event of a loss, and that "Democrats have since twice said" (#7290) thats what she should do. The article says nothing of the sort - as I've mentioned, the article is a speculative piece musing about any powers Harris may have to stop undemocratic skullduggery from the GOP. There isn't a single elected democrat quoted or reported 2nd hand - you've invented this "democrats are saying" narrative out of thin air.

Still waiting on those examples of a VP being asked "many times" to not accept a State's EC votes and that power being enacted before (#7290).

The Atlantic article quotes high powered liberal legal advice provided for the advantage of Democrats and while it might not have meant to, it supports legal advice given to Trump by Eastman on the powers of the VP and COngress last Jan 6th. I haven't changed what I've said but your posts are getting more and more confused.

“There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes..."

Some examples of historical precedent easily found are;

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii (Wikipedia).

Early unofficial totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes. However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon. Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.

Despite the apparent tabulation errors, Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28. Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office, and may have had no option other than to certify, as he lacked authority to inspect or retabulate the actual ballots cast.

both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete state-wide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes. Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30.

Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete. The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates.

To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The last time a House member and a senator signed on to an objection to a state’s electoral slate was in 2005, when then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and now-former Sen. Barbara Boxall (D-Calif.) lodged an objection to Ohio’s votes, which were decisive in former President George W. Bush’s defeat of Democratic nominee John Kerry.

The objection was recognized by Vice President Dick Cheney, who suspended the joint session so that each chamber could debate and vote on the matter.

A key difference between now and then was that Kerry, who had already conceded the race to Bush, announced beforehand that he would not participate in the electoral protest.

The challenge was resoundingly defeated by a 267-31 vote in the House and 74-1 in the Senate, where Boxer was the only person to vote for it.

The joint session for tallying electoral votes was also suspended in 1969 when then-Rep. James O’Hara (D-Mich.) and former Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) objected to the vote of an elector from North Carolina who had been pledged to President Nixon and instead voted for George Wallace, a candidate for the American Independent Party.

The objection was subsequently rejected by both chambers and the vote for Wallace counted.

In 2001, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) led a group of Democrats in objecting to the certification of Florida’s electoral votes, citing "overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” The group was unsuccessful in finding a Senate counterpart.

Rep. Maxine Walters (D-Calif.) in 2017 led a group of House Democrats in objecting to the results in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. No senators agreed to partake in challenging the results.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...s-about-the-electoral-college-challenges?rl=1

 

[60 Yards Out]

Weird. Why are you quoting yourself?
No rabbit hole or Trump demanding votes be created for him.

When you listen to the call, what was being discussed at the moment Trump made that statement, was whether invalid votes had been cast for Biden. The Trump campaign claimed over 24,000 of invalid votes were counted under several factual scenarios, backed up by the SoS official documents when Biden's lead was 11,779.

It WAS the job of the Georgia Secretary of State to investigate claims of invalid votes having been cast. Trump was telling Raffensperger to go out and do his job, to investigate the claims of invalid Biden votes by comparing the SoS documents with his voting roll, not to create Trump votes. Through his lawyers Raffensperger refused, but is doing that, now.

You still haven't answered my question which I've asked twice.

Did the process of voting on Nov 3, 2020, incorporating the various aspects of vote-by-mail or other remote voting options adopted in various States, allow for a meaningful opportunity to AUDIT the vote process or vote counting prior to the meeting of the Electoral College?

Bullshit.
“So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

 

[bourbons]

Weird. Why are you quoting yourself?

Its the standard response to Lebbo's inanity re: why interrupt an enemy making a mistake, it's all still going to plan etc.

He'll still be wheeling out this line in 10 years and beyond.

No rabbit hole or Trump demanding votes be created for him.

When you listen to the call, what was being discussed at the moment Trump made that statement, was whether invalid votes had been cast for Biden. The Trump campaign claimed over 24,000 of invalid votes were counted under several factual scenarios, backed up by the SoS official documents when Biden's lead was 11,779.

It WAS the job of the Georgia Secretary of State to investigate claims of invalid votes having been cast. Trump was telling Raffensperger to go out and do his job, to investigate the claims of invalid Biden votes by comparing the SoS documents with his voting roll, not to create Trump votes. Through his lawyers Raffensperger refused, but is doing that, now.

You still haven't answered my question which I've asked twice.

Did the process of voting on Nov 3, 2020, incorporating the various aspects of vote-by-mail or other remote voting options adopted in various States, allow for a meaningful opportunity to AUDIT the vote process or vote counting prior to the meeting of the Electoral College?

You still haven't answered mine, asked more than twice - why didn't they have them in court over this the instant Raffensperger refused?

Answer that and I'll happily address your question.

 

[bourbons]

The Atlantic article quotes high powered liberal legal advice provided for the advantage of Democrats and while it might not have meant to, it supports legal advice given to Trump by Eastman on the powers of the VP and COngress last Jan 6th. I haven't changed what I've said but your posts are getting more and more confused.

“There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes..."

Some examples of historical precedent easily found are;

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii (Wikipedia).

Early unofficial totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes. However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon. Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.

Despite the apparent tabulation errors, Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28. Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office, and may have had no option other than to certify, as he lacked authority to inspect or retabulate the actual ballots cast.

both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete state-wide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes. Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30.

Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete. The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates.

To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".

1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The last time a House member and a senator signed on to an objection to a state’s electoral slate was in 2005, when then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and now-former Sen. Barbara Boxall (D-Calif.) lodged an objection to Ohio’s votes, which were decisive in former President George W. Bush’s defeat of Democratic nominee John Kerry.

The objection was recognized by Vice President Dick Cheney, who suspended the joint session so that each chamber could debate and vote on the matter.

A key difference between now and then was that Kerry, who had already conceded the race to Bush, announced beforehand that he would not participate in the electoral protest.

The challenge was resoundingly defeated by a 267-31 vote in the House and 74-1 in the Senate, where Boxer was the only person to vote for it.

The joint session for tallying electoral votes was also suspended in 1969 when then-Rep. James O’Hara (D-Mich.) and former Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) objected to the vote of an elector from North Carolina who had been pledged to President Nixon and instead voted for George Wallace, a candidate for the American Independent Party.

The objection was subsequently rejected by both chambers and the vote for Wallace counted.

In 2001, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) led a group of Democrats in objecting to the certification of Florida’s electoral votes, citing "overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” The group was unsuccessful in finding a Senate counterpart.

Rep. Maxine Walters (D-Calif.) in 2017 led a group of House Democrats in objecting to the results in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. No senators agreed to partake in challenging the results.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...s-about-the-electoral-college-challenges?rl=1

Another fine example of the false equivalence you're so fond of. Key points would be these;

The islands favored Senator John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, by a narrow margin of 115 votes, or 0.06%, after a court-ordered recount overturned an initial result favoring Vice President Richard Nixon, a Republican.
...
The election, and the subsequent recount, are notable for giving rise to the only occurrence of "dueling" electoral slates in American history since the 1887 enactment of the Electoral Count Act.[3]
...
Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete statewide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes.[8] Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30. Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete.[7][1] The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.[11]

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".

Dispute arose from confirmed disparities, was settled by recount, and accepted by the losing side. No one asked their VP to refuse to certify results confirmed by recounts, or continued to accuse the other side of cheating in perpetuity after the event.

Likewise, a House member lodging an objection, quickly acknowledged and resolved via standard process, has happened before. Thats nowhere near pressuring your VP to not certify, just coz.

Yes, dueling electoral slates have occured before. Trump's actions in trying to create them have not.

 

[Lebbo73]

Bullshit.
“So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

Once again opinions from the peanut gallery mean nothing when you didn’t listen to the whole phone call.

 

[60 Yards Out]

Once again opinions from the peanut gallery mean nothing when you didn’t listen to the whole phone call.

I’ve read the full transcript. It’s very clear what he was asking them to do. It’s also very clear that his claims of illegal votes were the product of a feeble mind, promoted and amplified by his otherwise unemployable misfit advisers.

 

[60 Yards Out]

This is going to be interesting.

New York attorney general's office says it has identified numerous 'misleading statements and omissions' in Trump Org. financial statements

New York Attorney General Letitia James' office says it needs the testimony of former President Donald Trump and two of his adult children to determine their knowledge of what investigators say they have identified as numerous "misleading statements and omissions" in tax submissions and...

edition.cnn.com

 

[Lebbo73]

This is going to be interesting.

New York attorney general's office says it has identified numerous 'misleading statements and omissions' in Trump Org. financial statements

New York Attorney General Letitia James' office says it needs the testimony of former President Donald Trump and two of his adult children to determine their knowledge of what investigators say they have identified as numerous "misleading statements and omissions" in tax submissions and...

edition.cnn.com

Did you ever think that Trump is setting Pelosi, Clinton, etc up? Trump will release his tax returns and when he does it’ll * quite a few others up. When they release theirs, they can’t because they’re crooks, we’ll see it all.

All of the above isn’t going to go down like that though. You’ll have to wait and see what’s coming. Even I don’t know how it’ll all end for these crooks but think devolution.

 

[60 Yards Out]

“Even I don’t know… “
You’ve proved that right any number of times.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Even I don’t know how it’ll all end for these crooks but think devolution.

Have you checked to see if your thumbs are still opposable?

 

[Lebbo73]

Have you checked to see if your thumbs are still opposable?

How the * does a crank like you become a mod?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How the fu** does a crank like you become a mod?

I have a very particular set of skills.

 

[Lebbo73]

I have a very particular set of skills.

I won’t comment on those

 

[Werewolf]

Have you checked to see if your thumbs are still opposable?

How the fu** does a crank like you become a mod?

Lebbo = Buck Turgidson, Ghost Patrol = Soviet Ambassador