ALL 11 Alternate (Fake) Electors, Including GOP Chair Kelli Ward, Indicted In Arizona!

[jc456]

Show Democrats sent a Certificate of Ascertainment from Texas to Washington...

it was in the results.

 

[Faun]

the evidence is seen by everyone ahead of any actual trial proceeding, that disenfranchises any suspect named in the grand jury, and in high profile cases, that evidence is blasted out over the airwaves for every citizen to see and violates the ability to get a fair trial!! it infects the jury pool. See, grand jury hearings don't allow suspects to see the evidence or respond in kind! blatant abuse of the first amendment and constitutional rights.

You do know that suspects have the same access to the evidence as everyone else, right?

 

[Faun]

it was in the results.

Are you a liar, stupid or both?

Here's Texas' certificate of ascertainment. It's from Republicans, not Democrats...

https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2016/ascertainment-texas.pdf

 

[jc456]

You do know that suspects have the same access to the evidence as everyone else, right?

Do Prosecutors Have to Present Evidence That Helps the Defendant to a Grand Jury?

Prosecutors use grand juries to indict people, not to clear them of wrongdoing. But nevertheless, they sometimes have to present evidence suggesting innocence.

www.nolo.com

In many states, when prosecutors initiate a case through the use of a grand jury, they must present evidence that's helpful to the accused. This duty doesn't require that they present every piece of favorable evidence—they generally only have to offer evidence that strongly points to innocence. But in other states and in federal court, prosecutors have no duty at all to present evidence helpful to the accused.

 

[jc456]

Are you a liar, stupid or both?

Here's Texas' certificate of ascertainment. It's from Republicans, not Democrats...

https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2016/ascertainment-texas.pdf

look at all those electorates.

 

[Faun]

Do Prosecutors Have to Present Evidence That Helps the Defendant to a Grand Jury?

Prosecutors use grand juries to indict people, not to clear them of wrongdoing. But nevertheless, they sometimes have to present evidence suggesting innocence.

www.nolo.com

In many states, when prosecutors initiate a case through the use of a grand jury, they must present evidence that's helpful to the accused. This duty doesn't require that they present every piece of favorable evidence—they generally only have to offer evidence that strongly points to innocence. But in other states and in federal court, prosecutors have no duty at all to present evidence helpful to the accused.

Has nothing to do with what I just said, nutcase.

 

[Faun]

look at all those electorates.

What about them?

 

[jc456]

Has nothing to do with what I just said, nutcase.

they have evidence that they don't show, and, the defense must request and the prosecution can take their sweet ass time getting to them, violating a speedy trial.

 

[jc456]

What about them?

different electorates for different folks. did you read it?

 

[Faun]

they have evidence that they don't show, and, the defense must request and the prosecution can take their sweet ass time getting to them, violating a speedy trial.

Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You appear too insane to maintain a conversation.

 

[Faun]

different electorates for different folks. did you read it?

So? The matter at hand is a political party sending Washington a certificate of ascertainment for the losing candidate. In response to me saying that has never before happened, you point to Texas in 2016. But your own link shows Texas only sent one certificate and it was for the winning party?

Why do you post here? Do you really want others to see what a flaming nut you are?

 

[badbob85037]

No such thing as a fake elector. That's for Congress to decide which slate to approve.

The OP is therefore more leftoid lawfare.

"Attack on the US Capital" What a crock of shit.

 

[Faun]

"Attack on the US Capital" What a crock of shit.

Yes, the attack was on the Capitol, not the capital.

 

[jc456]

Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You appear too insane to maintain a conversation.

sure it is, it's evidence that isn't presented to the jurors implicating the suspect as guilty. the fk you demofks want real justice. You all suck at this.

 

[jc456]

Yes, the attack was on the Capitol, not the capital.

with no weapons, hilairous. intentional inciting a riot by the police.

 

[jc456]

So? The matter at hand is a political party sending Washington a certificate of ascertainment for the losing candidate. In response to me saying that has never before happened, you point to Texas in 2016. But your own link shows Texas only sent one certificate and it was for the winning party?

Why do you post here? Do you really want others to see what a flaming nut you are?

yep, none of those AZ electorates did that.

 

[Faun]

sure it is, it's evidence that isn't presented to the jurors implicating the suspect as guilty. the fk you demofks want real justice. You all suck at this.

LOLOL

No, it isn't. Now you've switched from evidence given to the public ... with ... evidence that no one sees.

Again, why do you post here here? Do you want people to see what a nut you are?

 

[Faun]

yep, none of those AZ electorates did that.

They didn't? Then what's this they sent to Washington?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Poor Trumpers.

They have attempted so many dumb lies in this thread. And they have had their asses handed to them. They have such a high tolerance for embarrassment.

 

[jc456]

LOLOL

No, it isn't. Now you've switched from evidence given to the public ... with ... evidence that no one sees.

Again, why do you post here here? Do you want people to see what a nut you are?

oh no, evidence is still given to the public and not to the defense.