I want a one act play of Trump legal team meeting in November/December 2020.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PiperK/status/1334720739350605826
https://mobile.twitter.com/PiperK/status/1335696049508380678
I’m supposed to feel BETTER that it was funded via bribes?
I’m sure we paid for it, they kept the bribe money but in this country for some reason it’s just better to say the bribe money paid for it.
But I was told there would be alternative electors appointed
Can’t get in trouble with Trump for refusing to appoint alternative electors if the legislator is shut down from COVID
Yes, but is that enough? There must be some effort to contact the voter to see what they say? The number saying “Yeah, that’s not my signature!” has to be way less than 1500.
Edit: I just read Parlay’s following posts.
Well theoretically but you know it’s so hard to get ahold of people in the cities, it just easier to say in those places that any signature doesn’t match and after you test 1000 and find 150 bad you get through out 150,000 of 1,000,000 from areas that went 85/15 for Biden. Duh.
Good thing Rudy’s not available to make that argument in court.
Would be nice if we ever elected someone young enough to use the tennis court
Taking your points, but the pardon office/wh counsel wouldn’t necessarily know who is in the deepest shit, whereas Barr knows or can find out the current status of any investigation. May be relevant to people not charged with anything yet, end of wishcasting.
Not a tennis story, but Biden does like the far superior racquetball
Mr. Webster jokingly invited Mr. Biden to get a racquet and join them. While he didn’t get a racquet, he did join them.
The vice president started the encounter by recounting a racquetball story from his early days in the Senate. While running for the 1988 democratic presidential nomination, he was challenged by a woman to a racquetball match. Though he didn’t know it at the time, the woman was a racquetball pro and soundly defeated him.
And that woman’s name was Albert Einstein Elizabeth Warren
No.
If it came to that they would side with legislature because that’s the outcome they want and they’d use the justification above to justify their desired outcome.
Has anyone pointed out that the idea that a state’s legislature can determine its electors in a way untied to the preference of the state’s voters is the foundation on which the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact rests?