HOUSE POLITBURO IS TERRIFIED OF TRUMP TESTIFYING LIVE BEFORE AMERICA

[Phantasmal]

Cheney would make mince meat of him

It would be something I would love to watch.

 

[Flash]

three false statements in a row......any election held in a manner contrary to that required by the US constitution is literally an unconstitutional election....both the US SC or a state SC could determine whether an election was unconstitutional, though in WI it was the state SC, and while no state has set aside the election results, the WI court did change the status of the WI election to unconstitutional which has not been overturned by the US court.......that changes Biden from a president like all who preceeded him to that guy in the Oval Office who was not put there by a valid, constitutionally correct election.....

The Constitution does not determine how an election works except in the broadest sense--the details are set by Congress and the state legislatures.

Also, you fudge on what the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled. Nowhere did it say the election was unconstitutional. WI law requires absentee ballots be returned by mail or in person to the municipal clerk. The Wisconsin Elections Commission allowed drop boxes to be used in addition. WI law did not specifically allow for drop boxes and the WI court ruled the use of drop boxes was illegal. It violated WI law. It did not violate the WI constitution and therefore was not unconstitutional. A person could have dropped that same ballot in a mailbox or in a drop box inside the municipal clerk's office and be legal.

Even it we followed your far-fetched argument, even an unconstitutional action which negated the WI electoral votes would not negate those from the other states and Biden would still have won the electoral college.

The Constitution only requires that Congress counts and certifies the electoral votes for a valid election.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The Constitution does not determine how an election works except in the broadest sense--the details are set by Congress and the state legislatures.

duh.......and when those rules are not followed, the election is unconstitutional "in its broadest sense"......

Also, you fudge on what the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled. Nowhere did it say the election was unconstitutional.

lol....untrue....it said it was unconstitutional "in its broadest sense".....

It did not violate the WI constitution and therefore was not unconstitutional.

it violated the US constitution "in its broadest sense".....and literally is unconstitutional as you have so clearly enunciated......

A person could have dropped that same ballot in a mailbox or in a drop box inside the municipal clerk's office and be legal.

true....but since the local election officials did otherwise it was NOT legal and the election was, by your clear statement, unconstitutional "in its broadest sense"......

Even it we followed your far-fetched argument, even an unconstitutional action which negated the WI electoral votes would not negate those from the other states and Biden would still have won the electoral college.

irrelevant to the fact that the PastyFaced Pedophile is the first person put in the Oval Office by an unconstitutional election......

The Constitution only requires that Congress counts and certifies the electoral votes for a valid election.

that of course is not true.....as you have previously stated, the Constitution also requires that only Congress and the state legislatures may set the rules for an election.......that was not the way this election was conducted in many states......therefore, in its broadest sense, the election was inarguably unconstitutional......

 

[Flash]

duh.......and when those rules are not followed, the election is unconstitutional "in its broadest sense"......

lol....untrue....it said it was unconstitutional "in its broadest sense".....

it violated the US constitution "in its broadest sense".....and literally is unconstitutional as you have so clearly enunciated......

true....but since the local election officials did otherwise it was NOT legal and the election was, by your clear statement, unconstitutional "in its broadest sense"......

Nope, Nope, and Nope.

If rules of legislation are not followed, it is illegal. If a provision of the Constitution is not followed it is unconstitutional. There was no provision in the WI constitution prohibiting drop boxes. It was in WI legislation. The court never said the drop boxes were unconstitutional, only that they were illegal. An illegal act does not negate an entire election.

Actually, the law did not prohibit drop boxes. It said absentee ballots had to mailed or returned to the municipal clerk's office. If the clerk's office had drop boxes it would meet the law.

It violated no provision in the U. S. Constitution. The state did legislate the rules of the election as the Constitution requires.

So far, no court has found anything in the election was unconstitutional including the WI court.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope, Nope, and Nope.

yep, yep, and yep...a method not approved by the state legislature IS unconstitutional.......there is nothing else to say about it......... ......you have nothing valid left to argue.......you're just going to have to go through life remembering you gave us our first *president......../hopefully it will be the last......

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

duh.......and when those rules are not followed, the election is unconstitutional "in its broadest sense"......

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusions that if the rules aren't followed then it is unconstitutional.

If someone speeds then they are violating the Constitution.
If someone jaywalks then they are violating the Constitution.

Absurdity seems to be where your argument leads.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusions that if the rules aren't followed then it is unconstitutional.

If someone speeds then they are violating the Constitution.
If someone jaywalks then they are violating the Constitution.

Absurdity seems to be where your argument leads.

sorry, I don't recall the parallel provision of the constitution.....

Section 4 Congress
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

please note the one for speeding and jaywalking.......

 

[Flash]

yep, yep, and yep...a method not approved by the state legislature IS unconstitutional.......there is nothing else to say about it......... ......you have nothing valid left to argue.......you're just going to have to go through life remembering you gave us our first *president......../hopefully it will be the last......

Laws regulating elections by the state legislature do not dictate every detail of election administration. Much is left to those actually administering the election at the county level and by election commissions in many states--voting methods, accommodations for special circumstances (disabled, pandemic, hurricane), etc.

If anything was unconstitutional you would think some court would have said so. Even the WI court did not declare anything unconstitutional.

You are confusing unconstitutional with illegal. The Constitution does not make anything "illegal."

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Laws regulating elections by the state legislature do not dictate every detail of election administration. Much is left to those actually administering the election at the county level and by election commissions in many states--voting methods, accommodations for special circumstances (disabled, pandemic, hurricane), etc.

If anything was unconstitutional you would think some court would have said so. Even the WI court did not declare anything unconstitutional.

You are confusing unconstitutional with illegal. The Constitution does not make anything "illegal."

I'm sorry you don't understand this (though to be truthful I think you do, but are just running like hell to avoid being pinned to the truth)......
incontrovertible and undeniable facts....
1) to conduct an election by a method not permitted by the state legislature IS a violation of the US constitution....
2) the Wisconsin court, upheld by the WI SC found that the 2020 election was conducted in a manner NOT permitted by the state legislature....
3) which is therefore unconstitutional.....

nothing you can say or do or pretend will ever change that.......so stop lying about it......

 

[Flash]

I'm sorry you don't understand this (though to be truthful I think you do, but are just running like hell to avoid being pinned to the truth)......
incontrovertible and undeniable facts....
1) to conduct an election by a method not permitted by the state legislature IS a violation of the US constitution....
2) the Wisconsin court, upheld by the WI SC found that the 2020 election was conducted in a manner NOT permitted by the state legislature....
3) which is therefore unconstitutional.....

nothing you can say or do or pretend will ever change that.......so stop lying about it......

No, I understand what you are saying, but you are using the term unconstitutional much too loosely.

Can you give us a case in which court found unconstitutional not conducted in accordance with state legislation? (WI did not find anything unconstitutional).

There is a clear difference between a method "not permitted" (prohibited) by the legislature and simply not included. There is no way the legislature can describe every detail of election administration that applies to everyplace in the state. You are choosing one constitutional provision and misinterpreting it to try to label something unconstitutional. It simply says the legislature should make the rules for conducting elections (subject to being overridden by Congress), not that those laws have to be followed exactly for the election to be valid. As long as the legislature made the rules the Constitution has been followed.

Is DeSantis acting unconstitutionally by changing dates for some of the election requirements in Florida? Or, is it common administrative procedure to make changes subject to conditions?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

sorry, I don't recall the parallel provision of the constitution.....

Section 4 Congress
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

please note the one for speeding and jaywalking.......

Based on that, the election wasn't unconstitutional since the Constitution only states Senators and Representatives. That would exempt the election Constitutional for President, state and local elections. Under your argument only one election on the ballot would be covered. Since there was no Senate election in Wisconsin, the only election your argument would apply to would be the one for Representative. All elections for President, all elections for judges, all elections for school board, all elections for state representative, all elections for mayor or city council, all elections for dog catcher would have been Constitutional. That would mean that the election for President in Wisconsin was not unconstitutional based on what the Constitution actually says.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Based on that, the election wasn't unconstitutional since the Constitution only states Senators and Representatives. That would exempt the election Constitutional for President, state and local elections. Under your argument only one election on the ballot would be covered. Since there was no Senate election in Wisconsin, the only election your argument would apply to would be the one for Representative. All elections for President, all elections for judges, all elections for school board, all elections for state representative, all elections for mayor or city council, all elections for dog catcher would have been Constitutional. That would mean that the election for President in Wisconsin was not unconstitutional based on what the Constitution actually says.

you are embarrassing yourself........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Can you give us a case in which court found unconstitutional not conducted in accordance with state legislation? (WI did not find anything unconstitutional).

yes, the WI case...I've proved you wrong.....there's no reason to continue dangling the catnip on a thread in front of your nose any longer......

 

[Taichiliberal]

you are embarrassing yourself........

Projecting again? Because last time I checked, Dump's lawyers and all the sycophants who could get to court put forth all this BS to test....60 times....of which were either thrown out for lack of evidence or officially disproven through the judicial process.

Hell, even Dumps AG Barr said all this was BS.

But fool that you are, you'll just keep following your orange god by regurgitating the SOS in hopes that it will magically come true. Goebbels would be proud.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Projecting again? Because last time I checked, Dump's lawyers and all the sycophants who could get to court put forth all this BS to test....60 times....of which were either thrown out for lack of evidence or officially disproven through the judicial process.

Hell, even Dumps AG Barr said all this was BS.

But fool that you are, you'll just keep following your orange god by regurgitating the SOS in hopes that it will magically come true. Goebbels would be proud.

its sad you people can't face up to the absolute fact of the unconstitutional election that put the Pasty Faced Pedophile in the Oval Office......you can't handle the reality that he's the first person put there by a farce instead of an election......

 

[Grokmaster]

Too funny, just like he said he was going to testify for Mueller, or his New York cases, or that he was going to return all the documents he stole, your problem is that you swallow everything a pathological liar spews.

None of his lawyers would ever let him testify anywhere regardless of what he says. Trump never has voluntarily, and he only appears when his legal maneuvering is exhausted. The seven or eight Presidential debates he was in proved he can’t do live questioning, especially when repeating talking points are useless

Besides, they don’t care if he testifies or not, in fact, probably never considered he ever would given their term ends in January, their subpoena was for the historians so that they know who was at the center of the attempted coup

STILL TRYING TO PRETEND THE RUSSIA LIES WERE LEGIT??


AND NOW THE HOUSE POLITBURO DOG and PONY SHOW IS SCARED SHITLESS OF FACING TRUMP.

HILARIOUS.

 

[Grokmaster]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Projecting again? Because last time I checked, Dump's lawyers and all the sycophants who could get to court put forth all this BS to test....60 times....of which were either thrown out for lack of evidence or officially disproven through the judicial process.

Hell, even Dumps AG Barr said all this was BS.

But fool that you are, you'll just keep following your orange god by regurgitating the SOS in hopes that it will magically come true. Goebbels would be proud.

its sad you people can't face up to the absolute fact of the unconstitutional election that put the Pasty Faced Pedophile in the Oval Office......you can't handle the reality that he's the first person put there by a farce instead of an election......

When your own AG and Bush appointed judges say your claims have no legal standing, proof or basis in reality, that should clue you in.
But Trump chumps follow the leader and just lie and deny to the bitter end. Yep, jails are full of such people.

And once again, faced with simple logic based on facts, our Post Modern MAGA Fool just vomits up a lame dodge of irrational talking points to avoid facing his folly. Pity everyone of rational reading comprehension sees PMP for what he is.

 

[Grokmaster]

AND THE HOUSE POLITBURO REMAINS TOO TERRIFIED TO FACE TRUMP...WITH GOOD REASON.

 

[Grokmaster]