17 GOP AG's and 106 GOP representatives supported an attempted coup.

Wrong. Simply wrong. You are spitballing, now.

 

Yeah, I'm not even paying attention to any larger argument he's making. Affidavits. Smh. Can't believe they're still stuck on that. I've never seen acceptance of an election become so difficult for so many Americans. It's pretty creepy.

 

Oh bull. The defense can present as many witnesses as it wants. You got 12 that say I did it? I have 13 that say I didn't. Dismissed.

 

I wonder why these people went to a trump fundraising website to submit affidavits, instead of to the proper authorities? We have the FBI, the FEC, the DHS. We have formal channels in place for these reports.

But nah, they figured the surest path to justice was to go to a trump fundraising site and report these "crimes". It's just such an obvious collection of comedy and lies.

 

Prove where I am wrong.

I have accepted the election. Biden won and there was not sufficient fraud to change that. I am objecting to discounting fraud out of hand. It takes me back to what I have said numerous times. Trump needs to concede.. But there are enough questions about this election to do an intensive investigation over the next few years.

Additionally, there is nothing illegal about appealing the results.

 

Your unevidenced, nonsensical claims can be dismissed without evidence. Nobody has to prove you wrong.

There was something wrong with Trumps legal appeals: they were frivolous, they were designed as theater to extract money from gullible people, and none of them matched the mentally ill president's fraud narrative. Not a single one. And they are being wielded as a rhetorical cudgel to incite violence.

 

Then you opinion is no more likely to be right than mine.

I have never claimed differently. However, it is not illegal to submit them.

 

You and anyone else are free to check on my.opinion vs yours. They will see i am correct and that you are just makong stuff up.

Secindly, your analogy is terrible. No two afgidavits cmake the same claim. They arent even consistent with one another amd come with zero evidence. So what you are really imagining is 12 people testifying that, hey, they know murders exist, because they saw murders before. And then you imply this could result in a conviction. This is laughable.

 

You are inadvertently admitting that I am right. I gave the example of twelve witnesses. Apparently the only way they would be found not guilty is with even more witnesses. In other words, a large amount of uncontested witnesses would be sufficient to find him guilty.

 

Or you are making stuff up.

You have read all the affidavits?

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the murder. I am pretty sure that if I saw someone stick a knife in someone or shoot them in other than self defense, I would recognize it as murder. I would not have to have previously seen a murder.

 

What he did is called granting your point to demonstrate how wrong you are even after your laughable assertions are granted. Maybe if you would slow down a bit, you would recognize this.

 

You're not getting it. If all you have is testimony, all I need is testimony to counter it. There are no "uncontested witnesses." If all I have to do to win the case is deny the charge, I win. How many witness you have is irrelevant, as I already demonstrated. He said/she said. They said/they said. Same thing.

 

Then why say thirteen witnesses? Either witnesses are sufficient or they are not. Counter witnesses are not relevant.

Then why is the testimony of women accepted twenty five years later claiming rape? It does not stand up in court, but a lot of people believe them anyway.

How do you have a counter witness? Someone sees what they consider to be fraud. Just because no one else saw it, does not mean it is not true.

 

Because 13 is greater than 12. He granted your laughable assertion in order to demonstrate how wrong you still are, even if one accepts your absurd, unevidenced assertions. I can't spell it out any more than this.

 

You're too patient. He's going on playing that game in the hope of remaining relevant.

 

You have failed miserably to to spell it out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I know. I only peek occasionally.

 

It's not as though Repubs who parade around wearing colonial hats, or pretend to be the defenders of our freedoms, wave the American flag, or make claims to being constitutional "originalists" had much credibility in the first place. But now they are a sad, pathetic, yet dangerous joke.

 

17 GOP AG's and 106 GOP representatives supported an attempted coup.
Man of man, do you have an upside down warped sense of "coup."

 

Given that you make repeated assertions you are either unwilling or unable to lend credibility to with any attempt at substantiation I must say I have come to regard your opinion with all the respect it is due, none.

 

Judicial activism has been the source of many injustices committed by the judiciary since Marbury vs Madison (1803). There is potential remedy through the appellate process but even that is not necessarily successful. But that has nothing to do with your original arguments anyway, you're going off into a tangent.

 

Thank you.

 

Fourteenth Amendment

• Section 3
  No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  

"These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber," he adds.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...hese-gop-house-members-shouldnt-even-be-sworn

 

"House Republicans are spending critical time when people are starving and small businesses are shuttering trying to overturn the results of our election," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, "but please tell us more about how 'both sides are just as bad.'"

 

No one claimed that they did anything illegal. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's legal to file any suit in a court of law, even the most ridiculous and frivolous suits. The legality in this case is the fact that the filers of this suit have no right to any action on it. No standing.