What is so attractive about Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton?

What unconstitutional act, are you alleging?

 

The Florida recount. It was ruled unconstitutional and ordered by the Supreme Court to be stopped.

 

First of all, the recount was not ordered by Gore, but (obviously) by Florida elections officials. So your argument fails.

Secondly, though, it was a very dubious ruling, that the Supreme Court could interfere with a state's tallying of their vote.

 

Ordered? Not exactly. Requested? Absolutely...

"Gore’s campaign asked officials in four of Florida’s biggest counties to recount their ballots by hand, kicking off a weeks-long process of inspecting punch-card ballots. Three weeks after the election, Florida declared that Bush had won by 537 votes."

Gore and his campaign staff were part of the scheme to unconstitutionally recount the votes.

Obviously, Gore was hoping those four counties would "find" the votes he needed.

 

I think Biden might be the first U.S. president who is a follower. Even the bad ones, like Piece and Buchanan, groped for solutions on their own. Biden is a puppet who reads what is handed to him. Oftentimes, as it was after the Hawaiian disaster, it takes him days to do what previous presidents, even the not so good ones, did in hours.

 

But requesting a recount, is not, by any means, illegal. And hoping that the results of the recount would be favorable to oneself, is also not a crime; nor is it the same thing, as leaning on an election official, telling him how many votes you want him to find for yourself, while threatening him with the specter of DOJ prosecution, should he not do so.

It stretches credibility, to believe that anyone is unable to distinguish the difference between those very different things.

 

Trump was requesting a recount. He's on trial for it. Why wasn't Gore charged?

When did Trump threaten anyone? Be sure and show us his exact words making a threat.

 

Your statement only proves that you are misinformed and/or that you have grossly misinterpreted the current indictments against Trump. There is absolutely no charge against him, for merely "requesting a recount." Recounts, by the way, are governed by state law, as far as how close a result must be, to trigger an automatic recount, and how close they must be to allow a candidate to call for a recount, for which that politician would then need to agree to pay.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

<Snip>
And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
<End>

Besides the full transcript of the call, you can also listen to the call, at the linked site

 

Where's the threat? I don't see anything there that sounds like a threat. If Raffensperger felt threatened, then he's a big giant puss.

 

When the head of the Executive branch, which includes the Justice Department, accuses you of criminal behavior, and tells you that you are taking "a big risk," by not producing the votes that he claims are due to him, that (FYI) is a threat. And not a subtle one. If you can't understand that, well that is your own problem.

 

The problem with all of these allegations is that a lot of them are just hurt feelings. For example, from the Georgia indictment:



They would have a stronger case if they focused solely on things that could even remotely be considered a crime rather than this.

 

The Georgia case is going to be a circus. The prosecutor was already ****ing up, even before the grand jury voted...lol.

This is going to be fun to watch.

 

That's absolutely false.
There's many documents that belong to the gov't, NARA, and not to any single person.

It was made clear trump took gov't docs. They were asked to be returned. trump refused. That's one set of his legal issues.
Stealing from our country.

 

Again, no link.
What laws did she break making that statement, if true?

She conceded the election.

 

Perhaps you can have your secretary do a Google search for you? I believe your secretary will have no problems finding the article after having the source, the title of the article, and an excerpt of the text. The other option is to choose to be ignorant which is no sweat off my back.

 

Just stuff I picked up on a news feeds and should be common knowledge to anyone actually paying attention.

 

And it is the president that decides that.

 

Elaborate.
It means exactly what i think it means in the context i used it in.
Too many leaders trying to accomplish the same goal ends up being counter productive.

 

Just asking, do you really believe that fatuous pile of horse excrement or are you just trolling?

 

You mean he wasn't just exercising his 1st A right of free speech?

BTW, studies of the ballots show a statewide recount would have resulted in a Gore victory.

 

Sexy legs?

 

According to you folks, it's treason to try to overturn an election. Ain't it?

 

Do you believe Gore did nothing wrong and Trump did everything wrong?

 

I can see a better argument for Joe that for Hillary. Joe has done some things (like or hate them). Hillary just lost a historic election the Democrats should have easily won.

 

Perhaps you can do your own work and provide actual evidence instead of internet memes!!!

I believe you have issues with real sources. Because you don't have any real points to make.