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

[jc456]

The laws of the states clearly lay out how electors are chosen. Hint. It requires to government to approve them based on the election results. It does not allow people to declare themselves electors.

The intent was to deceive Congress to prevent the counting of actual electors from those states.

This is not a legal strategy or politics. It’s a conspiracy to defraud the government and illegally disenfranchise millions of Americans.

why aren't you citing the law with links?

 

[Marener]

he wasn't allowed to.

Agreed. The legal system does not allow someone to reverse the outcome of election without sufficient evidence to prove fraud.

 

[Marener]

Particularly lame. You used to better than that. Oh well.

You're a poopyhead. I win.

 

[Rawley]

You're a poopyhead. I win.

Sad

 

[SurferH2O]

When did Alternate Electors get outlawed? This has been going on since early in our Republic, heavily in 1876, and many times since then. In fact, the last instance of Alternate Electors was 1960 and I believe in 2016 some voted against the will of the electorate.

Is someone keeping count of how many Republicans the Democrats are trying to or have put in prison? I know we have over 1,000 already from the protestors / rioters of January 6.

The Democrats are entering fascist territory at break neck speed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

under oath. Under a burden or responsibility to speak truthfully or perform an action faithfully.

As in certifiying by written signature being the duly elected and qualified electors

They didn't swear anything under oath.

They certainly did:

We the undersigned being the duly elected and qualified electors for President and vice president of the United States of America from the state of Arizona do here by certify:

The real Affidavit says by authority of law in us vested, voted for President of the United States of America with the following result: For President Joseph Biden 11 votes In Witness Whereof, we, the undersigned, have hereunto at Phoenix, Arizona on this 14th day of December, 2020,.-subscribed our respective names.

 

[Rawley]

under oath. Under a burden or responsibility to speak truthfully or perform an action faithfully.

As in certifiying by written signature being the duly elected and qualified electors



They certainly did:

We the undersigned being the duly elected and qualified electors for President and vice president of the United States of America from the state of Arizona do here by certify:
View attachment 940200



The real Affidavit says by authority of law in us vested, voted for President of the United States of America with the following result: For President Joseph Biden 11 votes In Witness Whereof, we, the undersigned, have hereunto at Phoenix, Arizona on this 14th day of December, 2020,.-subscribed our respective names.

So where's the part about being under oath? That they claimed Trump got more votes than Biden. Where they say it was a state certified official count. Like you claimed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So where's the part about being under oath?

speak truthfully or perform an action faithfully.

As in certifiying by written signature being the duly elected and qualified electors

 

[Rawley]

speak truthfully or perform an action faithfully.

As in certifiying by written signature being the duly elected and qualified electors

??? Certification has nothing to do with being under oath. Have you ever made a statement under oath?

Again, your ignorance is doing nothing but wasting my time. Do some homework, again.

What is Under Oath? Definition and penalties | LawDistrict

Being under oath has many important legal implications and must be followed in accordance with the law. Learn what you must and mustn’t do when under oath.

www.lawdistrict.com

 

[Marener]

When did Alternate Electors get outlawed? This has been going on since early in our Republic, heavily in 1876, and many times since then. In fact, the last instance of Alternate Electors was 1960 and I believe in 2016 some voted against the will of the electorate.

Is someone keeping count of how many Republicans the Democrats are trying to or have put in prison? I know we have over 1,000 already from the protestors / rioters of January 6.

The Democrats are entering fascist territory at break neck speed.

People got away with a lot of shit in the 19th century that doesn’t fly anymore.

 

[jc456]

Agreed. The legal system does not allow someone to reverse the outcome of election without sufficient evidence to prove fraud.

no, that isn't what I said, I said they, the judges, wouldn't allow him bring his challenges into court. That's constitutionally egregious and traitorous and violates his constitutional rights as a citizen of this country. so, fk you!

 

[Marener]

no, that isn't what I said, I said they, the judges, wouldn't allow him bring his challenges into court. That's constitutionally egregious and traitorous and violates his constitutional rights as a citizen of this country. so, fk you!

He petitioned the court but the cases were dismissed for various reasons including lack of standing, filing too late, and inability to state an actionable claim.

Thats what happens when you don’t really have anything.

 

[jc456]

He petitioned the court but the cases were dismissed for various reasons including lack of standing, filing too late, and inability to state an actionable claim.

Thats what happens when you don’t really have anything.

lack of standing is bullshit reason. BULLSHIT. It's what one uses when one is bought off and threatened.

If you don't believe that happens listen...

 

[Marener]

lack of standing is bullshit reason.

It’s not. we don’t allow random people to sue whoever they want for any reason they want anywhere they want.

These rules matter. Without them, it’s chaos.

Do you think Trump doesn’t have to follow the same rules all the rest of us have to follow?

 

[jc456]

It’s not. we don’t allow random people to sue whoever they want for any reason they want anywhere they want.

These rules matter. Without them, it’s chaos.

Do you think Trump doesn’t have to follow the same rules all the rest of us have to follow?

sure we do when we have evidence. so just shut the fk up already you anti amercican cuck

 

[Marener]

sure we do when we have evidence. so just shut the fk up already you anti amercican cuck

You didn’t have evidence either.

 

[SurferH2O]

People got away with a lot of shit in the 19th century that doesn’t fly anymore.

Alternate electors are a legitimate part of U.S. History. Only now are they suddenly a crime.

Something is (D)ifferent.

 

[Marener]

Alternate electors are a legitimate part of U.S. History. Only now are they suddenly a crime.

Something is (D)ifferent.

Hawaii in 1960 was drastically different. There was an ongoing court ordered recount and both set of electors met with the blessing of the state‘s governor as a contingency depending on the outcome of that recount.

There was no recount. No court cases that could change the outcome. No government blessing.

Nothing.

It never was legal.

 

[SurferH2O]

Hawaii in 1960 was drastically different. There was an ongoing court ordered recount and both set of electors met with the blessing of the state‘s governor as a contingency depending on the outcome of that recount.

There was no recount. No court cases that could change the outcome. No government blessing.

Nothing.

It never was legal.

The Alternate Electors wanted the legal process and pushed for it with the lack of signature verification, massive delays in Red areas for voting, voting machine issues, unrequested mail in ballots, and ballot harvesting. They had some valid complaints that never got answered and were not outside the norm to put themselves forward in case the legal challenge went through, which was their goal. To call them felons is ridiculous, but that's what the Democratic Party has done in their Fascist quest to seize and maintain power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Alternate electors are a legitimate part of U.S. History. Only now are they suddenly a crime.

Something is (D)ifferent.

That something is that these were not alternate electors.

Have you considered reading up on the material BEFORE commenting? Try it.