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

No, she did not.

 

Sure she did. She lobbied electors pledged to Trump to change their votes.

 

This is a false statement.

 

It's a month later... are they still "imminent"?

 

Lol, when? Dude, she had already conceded at that point

 

NEVER Happened!
Total Bullshit!

 

1. She never lobbied for electors to not vote for Trump

2. Even if she had, as has been explained before (quite possibly to you) lobbying electors to change their votes is NOT illegal since it is legal for electors to not vote for who they are pledged to. It even has a term, Faithless Electors. It wasn't an attempt to change who the legal electors were, it wasn't an attempt to have "fake electors" cast votes, it wasn't an attempt to toss the votes of the legal electors.

To compare faithless electors to what Trump did is a complete misunderstanding of how the system works...or an intentional misrepresentation.

 

Not sure, BUT:

 

She did ? How ? Did she break any laws ?

 

His "belief" is meaningless--Trump lies and lies often.

There is overwhelming proof that he knew there was no fraud yet he pursued Raffensperger anyway. There is only one way Raffensperger, after a certified audit and vote count, could alter the election and that would be to corrupt the election and Trump's asking him to do that is a violation of Georgia law. As president he cannot claim ignorance, especially in light of the overwhelming proof he knew there was no fraud.

Your last sentence is pure speculation and without foundation. Fani Willis is not the kind of person to try the case in the court of public opinion which is why she sought to withhold the release of the report until she filed charges.

 

Oh, let's see it. Not LW opinion pieces or LW "pundits" blathering, but actual proof.

Nonsense.

.

 

Hilary pressured electors to change their votes. I don't know if she broke any laws.

 

LW Pundits? Hardly, these are the rulings of US District Court Judge David Carter

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...numbers-false-orders-ex-lawyer-give-rcna53047

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” he ruled.

Carter also ruled that four other documents must be disclosed because they suggest that the primary goal of an unspecified legal filing was to delay the certification of the 2020 election results.

“In one email, for example, President Trump’s attorneys state that ‘[m]erely having this case pending in the Supreme Court, not ruled on, might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia.’ This email, read in context with other documents in this review, make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6 congressional proceedings through the courts,” Carter wrote.

 

Sorry, I forgot to mention LW officials.

 

Mighty bold of this judge to assert intent where none can be found. It can also easily be argued that even though the case would be pending, they would most certainly want relief, if relief were to be granted. But this judge isn't interested in that argument, he made an ad-hoc judgment on his own. And that is the problem with the politicization of this case. The judge can't help his emotions getting in the way.

 

Carter is a judge.

If his judicial philosophy isn't to your liking, no one cares. But, he's privy to the facts and renders rulings and the law based on those facts.

LW or RW pundits will engage in histrionics, but a federal judge will not.

You need to learn the difference. His opinion, whether you like it or not, carries weight. Legal weight.

 

Good to know you fully accept Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen.
Oh, and Dobbs.

 

. Being I judge doesn't endow wisdom, nor infallibility, nor partisanship.

 

When did she do so? You've been asked for proof of this accusation and you have run away and hid. Do you now have proof that Hilary (who, by the way, had ALREADY ****ING CONCEDED at that point) pressured electors to change their votes? Because so far you are just spouting bull ****.

 

You're entitled to that opinion, I just disagree. Pundits have the journalistic freedom to engage in histrionics, but a Judge is a lot more careful just to stick to the facts and applicable law, his reputation and his career depends on it.

 

Good to know you put words in people's mouths. My point is regarding histrionics. Pundits have the luxury of histrionics, judges do not. That has NOTHING to do with a ruling that you agree or disagree with. However, I think the judge is correct, here, in my view.

Try sticking to the facts and not your imagination.

 

Pundits have the luxury of indulging in histrionics. Not so with judges. My point isn't about whether or not you agree with their rulings.

But you can't toss them in the same category as pundits.

 

Sure I can.

 

Look at you backpedal.
No surprise.

Scalia, Alito and Thomas were/are judges.
If their judicial philosophy isn't to your liking, no one cares. But, they are privy to the facts and render rulings and the law based on those facts.
Left-wing hyper-partisans like you will engage in histrionics, but a federal judge will not - they are a lot more careful just to stick to the facts and applicable law, as their reputations and careers depend on it.
You need to learn the difference. Their opinions - Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen and Dobbs - whether you like it or not, carry weight. Legal weight.
And you can't toss them in the same category as pundits.

Glad you agree.

 

Not if you want to make a point with even a modicum of foundation.

But, of course, you are free to rant.