If you vote and win then that’s fine. It’s democracy. Never ending crying about the time you lost is childish nonsense. Act like a man and take your lose and move on.
Those false electors will be indicted. Ok, now the judiciary is in on it. Well, as predicted your beliefs have entrenched your world-view. The charts are bogus, get over it.
I'm just pointing out that you are drawing on Reuters to tell us about those charts, and i'm just putting Reuters into context by pointing out they have recently run a hit piece on the alternative media that has sprung up in response to all the censorship happening on the big tech sites like CensorshipTube and FarceBook. This indicates they are flaming partisans and not really a big, unbiased news operation. But i will take a closer look at how they hit the charts when i have some time.
The judiciary, depending on how deeply they are entrenched in partisanship, can definitely be "in" with whatever mob is stealing an election, and threatening democracy, yes. The judiciary was in on slavery when they came down with the Dred Scott decision. So yes, judicial bias, and/or misconduct can go very high. It's very easy to just dismiss a case. How many of the cases brought in regards the election fraud were aborted (dismissed) before they had a chance to see the light of day?
This piece by Reuters is spot on -- the clown on YouTube whining about it plus the claims he pushes about the legacy media stating that YouTube & Facebook would turn children in devil worshippers is laughable. The video should be in the comedy section. I provided multiple sources regarding your vote spike charts from Reuters, USA Today, AP, etc. -- all of them reputable sources with high factual reliability and minimal bias. And all of them state the context you are pushing regarding these charts is completely incorrect. It appears that you cannot address the facts provided by well-respected sources for facts --- and you simply re-direct by slinging mud at the sources. Which is a standard modus operandi for you and others.
Dude they were mostly republican judges. Yes, the cases were frivolous and without merit. You have a valid point about the past. On other note, executive privilege is firmly grounded in the incumbent executive;
DOJ 'taint team' examining Trump Mar-a-Lago documents Department of Justice 'taint' or 'filter' team combing over Trump raid docs https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-taint-team-examining-trump-mar-a-lago-documents A Department of Justice "taint" or "filter" team has been reviewing documents seized by the FBI during its raid on former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, Fox News has learned. A senior law enforcement official familiar with the process told Fox News that the review began soon after the search warrant was executed on Aug. 8. The official told Fox News that it is standard procedure for the Justice Department to use a "taint" or "filter" team to go through documents obtained during a search—in part, to identify records that may be protected by attorney-client privilege. Fox News first reported last week that FBI agents seized boxes containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege during the raid. Sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News Saturday that the former president’s team was informed that boxes labeled A-14, A-26, A-43, A-13, A-33, and a set of documents—all seen on the final page of the FBI’s property receipt —contained information covered by attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege refers to a legal privilege that keeps communications between an attorney and their client confidential. It is unclear, at this point, if the records include communications between the former president and his private attorneys, White House counsel during the Trump administration, or a combination. Sources told Fox News that some records could be covered by executive privilege, which gives the president of the United States and other officials within the executive branch the authority to withhold certain sensitive forms of advice and consultation between the president and senior advisers. The Justice Department’s use of a "taint" or "filter" team, while standard procedure, could complicate Trump’s legal team’s efforts for the appointment of an independent special master to examine the seized records, as it is likely they have already been inspected by DOJ officials. Trump's lawyers, in a motion to request the appointment of a special master Monday evening, stressed that a "filter team" "will not protect President Trump's rights." Trump’s lawyers demanded a special master to review the records, stressing that a DOJ "filter team" "will not protect President Trump’s rights." "For the foregoing reasons, President Donald J. Trump respectfully requests that this Court issue an order that: appoints a Special Master; enjoins further review of seized materials by the Government until a Special Master is appointed; requires the Government to provide a more detailed Receipt for Property; and requires the Government to return any item seized that was not within the scope of the Search Warrant," the motion concludes. According to a motion filed Monday evening in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Trump and his legal team are seeking an order to appoint a special master to review the records obtained during the search; blocks the further review of seized materials by the government until a special master is appointed; requires the Justice Department to provide a more detailed receipt for property and requires the government to return any item seized that was not within the scope of the search warrant. The motion also states that the government "has long treated President Donald J. Trump unfairly." "The FBI and DOJ have demonstrated a willingness to treat President Trump differently than any other citizen," the motion states, citing the two years of the "noisy" Trump-Russia investigations and more. Trump and his legal team stressed that "politics cannot be allowed to impact the administration of justice," saying the decision to raid the former president's private residence just months before the 2022 midterm elections "involved political calculations aimed at diminishing the leading voice in the Republican Party, President Trump." Judge Bruce Reinhart earlier on Monday morning admitted the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago home was "unprecedented" and formally rejected the Justice Department's argument to keep the affidavit leading to the search under seal, citing the "intense public and historical interest."
The whole executive privilege is doa. It's the executive branch that is wanting to secure documents so that it perform it's duties. A former president's assertion of privilege doesn't supersede the incumbent's rights and duties. But T be T, fukin around and about to find out;