Benedict Donald "had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, " he " did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful."
You see we don't have to refute any claim Benedict Donald made because that is what we have courts. He never proved any case that could have altered the election in any court Every state has a way to legally challenge election results. None of those legal remedies involve storming the capital when Congress trying to count the States votes. Trying to enter fraudulent slates of electors into the process in not a legal or constitutional remedy either. Those are crimes.
Benedict Donald "perpetrated three criminal conspiracies: a. b. c.
A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k);and
A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. "
www.texastribune.org
