Arizona Grand Jury Indicts Donald Trump Allies, 11 Fake Electors

Too bad these felons didn’t have the correct wording printed on the documents they signed FOR THE RECORD. Soon, they will become convicted felons, FOR THE RECORD.

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer Trump-Humper, except for Wudy.

'Mark Meadows unmasked in Arizona fake electors indictment, faces 9 felony charges: Report'
Source: Law & Crime

May 3rd, 2024, 10:26 am


"Charges have formally been made public against Mark Meadows, the onetime chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, in the expansive fake electors case now underway in Arizona.

Trump is not charged in Arizona but is considered an unindicted co-conspirator.

As Law&Crime recently reported, 18 fake electors in the state were indicted by a grand jury on April 24 for their alleged efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election. Though several Republicans were named directly in the fraud and forgery indictment including, among others, leaders of the state’s Republican party and two incumbent state lawmakers, some of those charged had their identities redacted, including Meadows and Trump’s former attorney also facing indictment in Georgia, Rudy Giuliani.

F0rmal charges have still not been confirmed for Giuliani in Arizona. The Associated Press reported first on Wednesday that the state’s attorney’s general office confirmed Meadows was being charged with nine felony counts and has been served. An attorney for Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment to Law&Crime on Friday.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ors-indictment-faces-9-felony-charges-report/

 

Challenge is through the courts. He tried to overturn the results.

And just like Gore? Please. Show me trump’s speech that comes close to this, after he lost all his court cases.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?161263-1/al-gore-concession-speech

 

I call bullshit. If your mango messiah truly was worried about the violent, traitorous dipshit supporters of his he invited to DC that day, he wouldn't have held that rally and got them fired up with his lies.

 

This is a dead horse. How many times has it been explained to you the differences between what Trump did and what Al Gore did?

 

The comparison between the 1960 Hawaii election and the 2020 election, as presented in the Federalist article, has key distinctions that undermine its analogy. Firstly, the 1960 situation involved a legitimate recount due to a very narrow margin and a judicial resolution confirming the election outcome before the alternate slate was used. In contrast, the 2020 scenario involved extensive efforts to undermine the results well after no credible evidence of widespread fraud was found, and the alternate slate of electors was part of a broader attempt to overturn certified state results across multiple states, not just address a close count in one. Additionally, the 2020 actions were accompanied by widespread disinformation and direct pressure on state officials, which differed significantly from the legal and procedural approach taken in 1960. These factors contribute to viewing the 2020 situation as an attempt to subvert the electoral process rather than a legal safeguard.

 

I'll substantiate my claims when asked.

Now, will you substantiate your claims, above?

 

Did I not just explain to you that for causality, you do a 'but for' until you find the first causal incident. The election, itself, has no causality on the riot. so, what is the first incident on the causality chain? It's Trump's tweet,
'Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild'

That was the cause of the protests. What was the cause of the riots?

McConnell did a good job of explaining it:

Having that belief [the riots belief that the election was stolen] was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth."
"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out,"
"There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," " Mr. Trump watched the events unfold on television." "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."
--Senate Min. Leader McConnell

In other words, months of Trump lying at rallies to his base long before the first ballot was cast that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election', and after Biden won, he told them that Democrats stole the election and to protest on 1/6. This resulted in a volcanic smouldering of rage, unleashed by Trump, Mo Brooks, and Giuliani who all whipped them up into a frenzy resulting in 6 deaths, 140 injuries, and millions of property damage, noting that Trump's lies have shaken confidence in American democracy to some 65,000,000 people. as for the one mention of 'go peacefullly and patriotically' that fleeting mention didn't stop the 20 times he told them to fight, and to 'fight like hell in order to get your country back', his speech clearly was designed to incite rage in his followers. Well, it resulted in a juggernaut of rage. Do deny this is total denial of the truth.

I already explained to you why Smith was indicting in things he believed, at the time, that would get Trump to trial. Charging Sedition would have pushed it past the election. That is the only reason, and we know he was going for low hanging fruit because he could have indicated all six of the co-conspirators and he didn't. As to the other problems, I'm sure the CoP and congress are looking into it.

AS for the containment problems by the CP, etc.,

COPILOT:

A bipartisan report released by the Senate provides detailed insights into the security breakdowns surrounding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Let’s delve into the key findings from that report:

1. Intelligence Failures:
   • Despite online calls for violence targeting the Capitol, federal intelligence agencies (including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security) did not issue a formal threat assessment to law enforcement ahead of the attack.
   • The United States Capitol Police’s (USCP) intelligence division failed to convey the full scope of information they received about threats of violence before January 6. For instance, they did not widely share a December report indicating that complex maps of the Capitol building had been posted on a pro-Trump blog.
2. Preparation and Staffing:
   • Capitol Police leadership did not effectively prepare for the Joint Session on January 6. They did not develop a staffing plan showing where officers would be located, nor did they provide officers with effective protective equipment or training.
   • National Guard assistance was delayed due to intelligence failures, bureaucratic processes required by the Capitol Police Board, and a lack of emergency authority to quickly activate the Guard.
3. National Guard Activation Delay:
   • Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund failed to submit a formal request to the Capitol Police Board for National Guard support before the events of January 6.
   • As a result, there were significant delays when Sund sought approvals to activate the D.C. National Guard. While a “workable” request was received by the Department of Defense at 2:30 p.m., the Guard did not arrive until 5:20 p.m., more than four hours after insurrectionists stormed the Capitol1.

The report sheds light on critical lapses in planning, communication, and response that allowed the violent pro-Trump mob to breach the Capitol.

I, nor any prominent dem is saying that Trump had no right to speak, nor they didn't have the right to protest. By the way, the protestors did not get a permit to protest at the capital, only at the Ellipse area, and that does pertain to 'right to protest', but I'll let that one slide.

Special Counsel Jack Smith began the investigation that led to the indictment of Donald Trump soon after his appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022. The investigation moved relatively swiftly, culminating in an indictment by June 8, 2023. This timeline indicates that Smith's team took about seven months to gather evidence and present it to a grand jury for an indictment

He just may add to the indictments, but since they are far more serious, sedition, what not, an investigation of something that could be considered borderline treason, you'd expect at least 3 years, so I wouldn't be pressuring Smith, he's got a lot on his plate, knowing that his indictments are 2 of four.

You're whole premise seems to be that, because Trump wasn't charged with incitement, therefore, it didn't happen. That's a logical fallacy, especially when we saw it happen, form the time lied over and over and over again to his base that the only way dems can win is if they rig the election, until after the election, he told them we stole it, leading to the juggernaut of rage on 1/6.

I'll need more specifics.

Biden isn't using his office to influence the election, there is no evidence of that.

Smith has the right, as prosecutor, to prosecutorial discretion. You, nor I, are privy to all the facts he is privy to whereby you, nor I, can judge why he chooses to do what he does. Your point is moot.

have you even read the indictment charges? You're barking up the wrong tree, he is not being charged with incitement. I think, however, in time, as the trial begins, and I believe, Smith might add the charge of seditious conspiracy. The incitement is my opinion based on what my eyes have seen, and I've already told you. We are privy to the same public information, and what I've seen, I'm wondering why you can't see it, it's right in front of you. But you have to factor in all the rallies, what he told his people at those rallies, and how that built up rage which was unleashed on 1/6. but, he's not being charge with this, only it's effect, obstructing Congress' joint certification session.

See above. On 'influencing the election', there is no evidence Smith has anything to do with the election. Garland apparently wanted to wait until the 1/6 committee finished their investigation before he appointed Smith as SC. In a sense, the house investigation was the 'beginning of the investigation" as a precursor to Trump, whose investigation was inevitable, long before he decided to run, noting that he decided to run far in advance of most politicians vying for the presidency. One could easily posit that Trump did that so it would make it look like the investigations were interfering with him, but in truth, it's the reverse. He's running in the hopes of staying out of prison. In fact,. I'm sure his attorneys have told him it's his only hope.

You keep harping on the riot, but it's not about that, it's, like I said, it's
that they were part of the larger, multifaceted unprecedented and illegal scheme by Trump and his co-conspirators to subvert the 2020 election.
That's the focus of the 2 indictments of Trump relatilng to 1/6, the riots were a small part of it.

Even if they were 'legal' (though borderline) they became illegal when they were held for possible slate swapping at the joint session of congress.
The plan was intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence, who presided over the session, with a basis to delay or otherwise affect the certification process, based on claims of contested votes and ongoing legal disputes in several states. The intention was that presenting alternate slates would cast doubt on the election outcomes in those states and potentially persuade Pence to act in favor of delaying certification or rejecting disputed electors.

You see? This was to occur LONG AFTER the outcomes of the lawsuits, none of which were successful, so to stay out of legal trouble, the electors should have disbanded THEN. That they were preserved, that is what made them illegal. There is NO constitutional provision for such an act. Yes, ence didn't go along with it, but they sure as hell tried to persuade him to do it, to remand the electoral votes back to the states in hopes they would find that the elections weren't valid at which point they would swap the slates of electors from Biden to Trump's. THAT 'attempt' was illegal. The contested votes were part of this scheme, which is illegal. I'm wondering why congresspeople (repub senators and congresspersons) weren't indicted? But, that would have been messy (to indict over 100 repubs in congress and the senate, ooh boy, I'll cut Garland some slack for not doing it) so I can understand why they weren't.

Hmmm. I don't think that is quite right. I explained this, briefly, before, but looks like a more robust dive is needed, so.... The claim that the fake certificates of ascertainment weren't illegal because they lacked forged signatures and could potentially be signed by governors if needed doesn't quite hold up. These certificates falsely declared that Trump won the votes in their states, which is misleading since they represented themselves as the official state documents when they weren't.

Also, forgery involves more than just the signature—it encompasses any creation of documents intended to deceive. The legal processes set by the Constitution and federal laws like the Electoral Count Act were not followed here. These laws dictate how electoral votes should be certified and creating alternate documents intended to disrupt or alter election results can certainly cross into illegal territory.

I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the law, any lawyers want to chime in? @Reality?

I don't know any criminals who would be advised by any criminal defense attorney that the way to beat the indictment is to claim incompetence.

Sorry, that's not a defense.

That defense might have worked but for the preservation of the electors beyond the outcomes the lawsuits (and in some states, there was no lawsuit, or a bogus one was whipped up at the last minute, to legitimize the electors) for elector swapping after 1/6 when it was hoped Pence would remand the electoral votes back to the states.

Repubs contested well over 100 electoral votes. They met at a nearby Willard InterContinental Hotel to coordinate this plan (or so I've heard
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/30/donald-trump-called-capitol-riot-aides-first-thing). The plan was to deny Biden his 270 votes which would have forced a House Vote for the President. Since republicans have a two state majority in the state delegations, Trump would remain as president. If that didn't work, Pence was to remand the electoral votes back to the states where dual slates of electors would be presented. It's confusing. But, as I understand it, this plan to subvert the election was illegal.

One thing is certain, the Repub plan was premeditated to deny Biden his 270, that's subversion and not an organically occuring contestation, which is the case with dems. They weren't trying to subvert the election, they didn't meet on Jan 5 at the Willard InterContinential with over a 100 senators and congresspersons for this purpose.

You are way off the mark. Here's more information for you:
https://missouriindependent.com/202...es-are-central-to-the-trump-jan-6-indictment/

Uh, you misread me. Here it is again:

Therefore, the move to put forward alternate electors was not just a separate maneuver but an integral part of the events leading up to and culminating in the assault on the Capitol.

That does not say the assault was part of the Trump plan, it says that the electors were party of a larger scheme that led up to and culminated in the assault. The assault happened because of Trump, planned or not, and that fact doesn't nullify my sentence.

 

Specious on it's face. None of what you attempt to use as an excuse changes the fact that in both cases alternates recorded their votes TO PROTECT THE VOTES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES due to outcomes still pending due to challenges and recounts. YES some of those states where Trump was challenges were DAMNED close and a key difference if you want to make one is that in some of those states election officials have acted illegally by changing election rules as to allowing certain ballots. Whether you liked those challenges or agreed with them does not make it criminal. The fact is whether you admit it or not the Trump campaign was acting on IT'S belief it was protecting the electoral process from an attempt to subvert it by Democrats, every challenge they made was based on what they believed were acts by Democrats to subvert to proper vote. So no there is no difference, alternates have existed before and even before Hawaii. And as noted Gore was prepared to have his vote if it came to that but under Florida law the state legislature could have and was preparing to appoint them in order to save Florida's vote from his Big Lie attempt to overthrow, I'll use the term you guys like to use, that election.

 

Without it there would have been no reason anyone there..................just stretching out YOUR failed logic trying to hold Trump responsible for the riot at the Capitol.

So we should prosecute people who use the word "wild" in describing an event? Why do you equate and chain together "wild" and "riot".

I could care less what he said in the heat of the moment without the facts of how it occurred.

So you admit Smith is acting politically, thank you. The fact is he has a DUTY to charge Trump with insurrection and sedition and conspiracy and all the other crimes you allege without regard to the election. The fact is the Biden DOJ has no charge here and waited until now to try an effect the election.

False are you denying DHS, DOJ and the White House was urging the additional security be requested by the Capitol and DC? Sund made FOUR request for approval for the additional security and the House SaA told him the higher ups refused and didn't want the optics of the NG there. They weren't prepared because they were denied that additional security by the Capitol leadership. The troops were delayed because the Capitol leadership and DC mayor did not make the formal request until after the riot had already started. And then there is the time lag to get those approvals submitted and signed off and troops deployed from Virginia to the Capitol.

Had the Capitol leadership and the DC mayor done their duty and had submitted the request as they were being strongly urged to do the riot would not have happened. It was the weakness in the perimeter that allowed a few to get through and that led to the flood.

Others had the permits at the Capitol, Trump didn't organize the events at the Capitol just HIS event, but I'll let that slide.

It's been under investigation for almost FOUR years prosecutions have been going on for YEARS. This is entirely planned to influence the election.

WHAT? How many grand juries has he had, when does he get into double jeopardies here? If he has a case bring the entire case not piecemeal. What is this EXTRA case he is sitting on?

That's your logical folly, that since he was not indicted for such a crime he committed it Smith is just waiting for some absurd reason to charge him. That is the logical fallacy. My logic is that since Trump did not conspire with anyone nor call for anyone to engage in violence and in fact just the opposite then THAT did not happen and therefore was not charged with it.

Who does the DOJ report to? Which state and county DA's have been meeting with the Biden White House?

So when did he announce that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to commit violence and insurrection but was using his prosecutorial discretion not to charge him and where can I find you post expressing your outrage over it?

That would be a FELONY have you ever read the Constitution? Only a grand jury can bring such a charge and it DIDN'T. YES he is not charged with incitement but you want him convicted of it and declare him guilty of it.

Is your real name Adam Schiff? I recall him using such phrases and then never producing the evidence.

Cite from his speech where he urged anyone to go to the Capitol and engage in violence and insurrection. Cite from anything he said or tweeted that called for violence and insurrection and don't try the phony "WILD" canard, come to Mardi Gras it's going to be WILD. Come to Times Square for New Years it's going to be WILD. Come to the Veterans bike ride through the Capitol and gathering at the Ellipse it's going to be WILD.

See above YOU have stated that Smith is being entirely political in his timing of the trial and the election.

Two separate matters.

Oh now you try to downplay the riots. Had the riots not occurred the voting would have proceed just as in 2001, 2017 with the challenges being raised and denied and the vote certified. What totally belies your made up schemes is that the riot in fact PREVENTED Trump from even trying. It STYMIED his attempts to get electors replaced with ones he believed were the legitimately elected.

No more than when alternates cast votes in the past, you can't get around the fact they were ALWAYS contingent votes.

There were several plans and legal theories still being attempted including the above which had been attempted in previous votes. The Constitution won the day.

That has NOTHING to do with the law nor a legal obligation and there were attempts to challenge up to the last minute. That they had not taken the ballots and burned them in the fireplace is of no matter.

I agree and why I have consistently said it would have taken some miracle for Trump's last gasp desperate attempts to succeed. That he tried does not make it illegal.

What were they supposed to say "We the undersigned casting the EC votes for our state do NOT vote for Trump". YES had the challenges been upheld, and illegal votes removed or outcomes changed then those votes would have represented the voted of the STATE.

Oh back to the they were going to slip them in and no one would notice scheme? The ONLY way they could have been used was by winning a LEGAL CHALLENGE. No you may disagree with the Trump campaign as to what was a legal challenge, but that does not make it criminal for them to have stated their challenges.

What on earth are you talking about? I think them advising what you are claiming would have shown incompetence but then that is not what they were attempting. AGAIN how were they going to fool everyone that the alternates were in fact the originally certified electors and sneak in those votes instead?

More specious nonsense.

There were several plans..............

Do you think the Dem plan is to deny Trump his 270 in this election?

If you have something to say then say, I have already posted cites to back my position with the key passages and they still remain.

It has nothing to do with the assault, the people who engaged in the riot had nothing to do with the alternate electors, they had nothing to do with the Trump campaign AGAIN it prevent Trump from his last desperate gasp.

Trump nor his campaign had anything to do with a riot or insurrection scheme it FOLED their last gasp desperate attempts.

Tell me exactly how the riot played into Trump's plan and the evidence of this conspiracy and AGAIN this would be the greatest political crime in the history of the country and you assert that the person in charged is using their prosecutorial discretion to not charge that? That he is sitting on the clear convincing evidence that Trump was involved?

I had to go back and heavily edit your quotes due to the character limit, can you try a little brevity.

 

How many times do you have to be reminded the similarities? AND that yes alternate electors were going to be a factor. Alternates are not illegal and in all the cases were to preserve and protect the states electoral votes and nothing more.

 

Additional security for such expected crowd sizes is SOP, it is to ensure there IS no violence or people can try to start some kind of violence. The riot was the LAST THING they needed or wanted.

 

Challenge is through the election commissions, through courts and in the case of the Presidentials through Congress.

Gore gave up when his last gasp unconstitutional attempt failed so what? Gore lost SUMMARILY in court with his BIG LIE about the ballots and voting problems and then he STILL continued to fight and overturn the election with his unconstitutional selective hand recount scheme. He and others to this day claim that had he been able to complete his unconstitutional hand recounts he would have won.

 

And for that they should go to jail even though it matters not a twit.

 

I have read it you should along with the other plans and legal avenues they were pursuing. People feeding you these simple dismissals are pathetic, lazy, braindead liars.

Try actually refuting the facts

"As the letter and Hawaii precedent make clear, Shafer and the other Trump electors not only did nothing wrong, but they acted prudentially to ensure that if the state court lawsuit resolved in the president’s favor, Georgia’s electoral votes would be properly counted on Jan. 6, 2020.

Here we see one of the only differences between Trump’s legal challenge and Kennedy’s: The Hawaii state court promptly resolved the merits of Kennedy’s legal challenge, while in violation of the Georgia Election Code that requires lawsuits contesting elections to be heard within 20 days, the Fulton County court delayed assigning a judge to hear Trump’s election dispute and then delayed the first scheduled hearing until Jan. 8, 2021 — two days after Congress certified Biden the winner of the 2020 election."

 

Great...
An entire paragraph which represents an egregious misunderstanding of the sitiuation in Florida in 2020...

 

The electors in Hawaii, which, no, you have not looked into at all, were legal. They were approved by the state executive, under the seal of the state. Trump's fake electors were not. The "legal avenue" under the Eastman memo required a violation of the Constitution and the ECA.

 

It wouldn’t matter to you and the MAGA crowd since you wouldn’t jail a Trump supporter if they burned down the Capitol and shot someone in the face at high noon on Pennsylvania Avenue .

 

See #333

 

My comment negates your premise, please reread it, you're just repeating yourself, and until you can ACTUALLY refute my argument (negative declaratives do not counter the argument), it stands.

Did I say that? Please don't frame a question whose premise is not being disputed. No such equation is offered. I merely pointed to the first incident on the causality chain which culminated in a riot/insurrection. It was the first incident on a long series of factors resulting in the riot/insurrection.

My how you have a way of trivializing an argument, which a pseudo debate trick. You shouldn't, I know all of them.

No, it was well thought out, articulate & eloquent comment, made on the floor of the house, thus part of the congressional record for generations to refer to, reflecting a rare moment of clarity, and, as it was delivered by both Senate Minority Leader, and a similar comment made on the floor of the House, by Kevin McCarthy, RELEVANT to the discussion.

Well, that depends on your point of view. I think it is honorable, moral, nay, absolutely necessary to get the trial going and finished before the election.
Why? So that the electorate will have the information they need (regarding guilt or innocent) so as to make a more informed decision in November.

That Trump happens to be a Republican is not the fault of Smith, who, by the way, is registered as an INDEPENDENT., which is to say, Trump being a republican is an inadvertent and incidental fact.

That Smith's action reflects this view puts him in high regard by anyone with high standards of morality.

If acting in the best interest of the nation is 'political', I don't think it is, but the salient point is 'best interest of the nation'.

I don't want to get into the weeds of the Capital Police's issues regarding containment. They are working it out, I'm sure. No, Pelosi is NOT in the command line (go look at the website), and the day to day operations of the CP are not her responsibility. She, as head of the House, provide legislative oversite, when deemed appropriate. She coordinates with the Sergeant at arms only on certain administrative and ceremonial matters, only . This claim trying to blame Pelosi, that's about as 'being political' as you can get, so please, practice what you preach. Trump was the cause, not Pelosi. The evence is so blatantly glaring us in the fact, it boggles my mind that you are trying to pin such a thing on her.

Had Trump not been a malignant narcissist criminal fraudster conman, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Whatever

Garland didn't want to do this, but the docs thing forced his hand, and he had to put two SC's into action. 1/6 is a pretty big deal, and four years, investigating over a thousand criminal acts, it's amazing they got it done as fast as they did. Hell, US Attorney Weiss, on his 6th year, is still investigating ONE PRIVATE CITIZEN who happens to be the son of a US President (would we be having this conversation if he weren't, talk about 'political' and Hunter isn't' even a politician), and are you complaining?

Physician, heal thyself.

We shall see

No, there were 6 unindicted co-conspirators. Why weren't they charged?
Timeliness, which supports the notion that trump is not being charged with sedition because that would slow the process down. You're engaging in wishful thinking where I have some evidence on my side. But, he didn't know that it wouldn't go to trial, anyway, so we shall see what develops.

Doesn't matter. Biden doesn't dictate to the DOJ whom to prosecute, and there is no evidence that he does. In fact,. the evidence is to the contrary. Did he interfere with the investigation of his own son? You think he would have directed Garland to assign an SC to investigating Hunter? That defies credulity. That is evidence for my position, not yours.

Why would I be outraged that Smith used his 'prosecutorial discretion' to not charge Trump with sedition? I'm not privy to all his facts, and i respect his judgement. I have NO RIGHT to be 'outraged'. I would ahve preferred it, but I respect his judgement.

You're nitpicking. Of course 'grand jury' sheesh.

I have an opinion, don't have a conniption.

Adam Schiff is irrelevant.

This is a classic specious argument. When's the last time you heard a criminal tell an underling 'go murder so and so'? "Go insurrect?" That's an absurd argument.

No one does that. Announcing your crinme is not required for a criminal conviction since criminals rarely announce their crimes before they commit them.

See above.

related matters.

I'm not trying to downplay them at all. I'm saying their is a bigger, grander, story here, and the 'insurrection' part is only a part.

Not when they are used in a conspiracy to subvert the election, see the GA indictment,

No, the Eastman Memo, the 'Greenbay Sweep' by Navarro, were aspects of the overall plan to unlawfully subvert the election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

See the GA indicmetn, see the Wash DC indictment.

See the indictments.

they signed a deceptive doc, where it became illegal is when they sent it to the government. Other crimes might be relevant, see the GA and AZ indicments. There are mitigating factors for some electors, no doubt. Even Smith mentioned that some were 'tricked' if I recall correctly.

The standy electors awaiting outcome of the lawsuits, is one thing., but preserving them for swapping slates at the joint session after remanding electoral votes back to the states, that's another thing altogether. I'm pretty sure that (attempt) was illegal, but we shall see.

Challenges are for the courts, and Trump lost them all. he should have stopped right at that juncture, but he didn't. That's when he started getting into legal trouble. they should be done before 'safe harbor'. How many times do I have to mention this to you?

the alternates were not 'certified'. Biden's electors were certified, and, by law, the only one's allowed to be certified.

Disagree

There was one big mulifaceted plan. If this didn't work, try this, and so on.

The dem plan is to win the election, the right way.

The DOJ's plan is to prosecute criminals. If they happen to be republicans, that's an incidental and inadvertent fact. They prosecute dems, too, you guys forget, I gotta nice list of dems, but you guys ignore that fact.

'
Whatever

The left hand might not be aware of the right hand, but the brain knows what's going on.

They caused it, what can I tell ya?

I've expressed this literally, too many times. I think I'm passed the 16k limit.

 

Yeah, I still call bullshit. Trump got the outcome he wanted. He would have cancelled the klanfest if he truly was worried about security of DC.

 

How did the riot help him to attempt his last challenge when in fact it STOPPED it. The protest at he Capitol was like any other protest there, to influence Congress to act is it was calling for.

 

I'll take "Words that can only be typed be someone who hasn't seen a single second of footage from that day for $1,000, Alex."

 

The similarities are meaningless against the illegal aspects of the Trump conspiracy, it's those differences where Gore, not illegal, Trump, illegal, that mean something

I explained to you already why you are wrong, and you are just repeating yourself.

In GA, many things which would not be illegal become illegal when done to forward a RICO conspiracy. So, there's that.

Moreover, in AZ, They signed certificates falsely attesting to a Trump win and submitted them for approval by Congress, that's illegal.

 

It didn't really help, but Trump is not known to be a strategist, more of a shoot from the hip kind of guy, and in the context, it makes perfect sense. he had a plan, but owing to his own myopia, he helped bumble with the riot HE CAUSED, inadvertently, intentionally, or otherwise. He bears responsibility. Not total, but a lot.