‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election

Care to point to the statute that gives that definition?

Meanwhile

https://www.wtoc.com/story/1700157/woman-arrested-for-trying-to-pass-fake-1-million-bill/

 

Under the guise of an "ongoing dispute". Without the fake electoral certificate there was no "ongoing dispute"

 

All progressive Democrats and Republicans should all demand that the DOJ indict Trump NOW -- before it is too late.

 

HE still disputed the results yes. So what?

 

No he didn't. Pence offered no dispute on the results. Members of Congress did but that is a completely different process then the one the fake electors were supposed to be used for.

 

They two do not even bare the simplest resemblance nor does the alternate even present itself as from the State of Arizona or have a seal on it care to point where that makes it a fraud?

 

1. I asked you point out the statute that says it needs to "bare a resemblance" to the real one, you have not.

2. You ignored the linked story where a woman was arrested trying to pass a "1 million dollar bill". A million dollar bill does not "bare the simplest resembalance" to real US currency but she was arrested anyway.

3. Its a fraud because it claims that those signing it are the "duly elected and qualified" electors from Arizona.

 

Him being a whiney little delusional idiot does not justify a fake elector plot.

 

I know what was stated in the plan, those state electors would not be counting and the total would be less and the number to reach a majority would be less those electors. I wasn't even my cite which I copied and pasted which CLEARLY states that.

 

You are leaving out the part about WHY those state electors would not be counted by Pence. The reason was that there would be "alternate" (FAKE) slates of electors from those states giving justification for Pence to throw out the real electors. Pence refused to go along with the plan. A Pence aide refused to pass on the fake elector certificates to Pence, thus denying Pence ANY justification for throwing out the electors. This is why the members of Congress attempted to derail the process by objecting to the electors from some states.

 

Still haven't read the Eastman memo, I see.

 

Why should he? He knows what he knows and he doesn't want any facts to get in the way.

 

Yeah I have and even cited it.

How long does "imminent" last before it is no longer imminent?

 

They would not because the results of the elections for those electors were being claimed to be invalid because of contest to the electors, you know like when the Dems did the previous three electoral counts. Pence would have declared those slates invalid and then those states would cast no votes AT ALL, read what I quoted from your cite.

 

It was as much a justification to contest those electors as when the Dems did it the previous three votes for Reps.

 

Well it can't be accepted without an official seal from the State to be THE STATE ELECTORS. Go read some of the letters even state that they are for "in the event.....". They were not forgeries and someone trying to "slip them in" and fool everyone. They were the list for IF by some MIRICLE Trumps plan worked THEN they would be certified by the respective state and then an OFFICAL form would be submitted. But by Jan 6 that was long gone and the only way it could have happened would be Pence to agree there was some fraud or something and the challenges be accepted and those states just not vote.

It was stupid all around just as stupid as when Gore tried it with Bush to get FL electors decertified and changed and then the challenges to Bush both times and Trump his first time. But someone is going to be charged with a crime............let's hope not because that is sending the power of our government down a path we may never get it back from.

Imminent Day 16!

 

Pence had no authority to reject electors from state certified elections. "Claimed invalid" is meaningless. Fake electors showing up in Congress is election fraud.

 

I didn't ask if it could be accepted, I was asking if they wanted it to be accepted and the answer to that is yes.
Yes SOME of the electors demanded that "In the event..." be included (NM and PA) the other five states contained no such language.
There would be no challenge if there was no alternate slate of electors...that's the part you keep wanting to sweep under the rug.

 

You are correct it was a dumb plan that was never going to succeed. And no fake electors showed up in Congress, the electors don't vote in the Congress those votes occurred back in December.

 

Stupidity is not a defense to election fraud. And, my mistake,not Congress, fake electors showing up in their respective state capitols to cast votes is election fraud. The votes are sent to Congress to be opened and read.

 

I think some don't know the meaning of the word, imminent.

 

Nor IS IT election fraud on it's face. And that vote occurred in December. The alternates were never going to vote on anything unless there had been some LEGAL challenge upheld and none was.

 

Again, you have failed to read the Eastman memo.

 

None of those involved fake electors. Your boy did that.

 

You have yet to ever actually address it, despite me trying to get you to read it dozens of times.