Not before the electors filled out the documents. Was it illegal from the time they filled out the documents until the court ruling? Until the recount?
I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. The info I found says that before the deadline on december 13th, tabulation errors were found and recounts had shown both the democrats and republicans winning the state. There was ongoing litigation to confirm which count was correct.
The alternate slate of electors filled out the paperwork and sent it to congress before the litigation came to a conclusion. Are you claiming that was illegal?
There was no such thing in the last election. There was baseless allegations that were getting thrown out of court because they had absolutely no evidence.
So whether it is illegal or not depends on your false assumptions about what is baseless?
There was no evidence to suggest that the count was wrong in any of the states they tried to arrange fake electors for.
They were no more fake than the democrat electors from Hawaii.
There was just as much evidence as could be expected given the likely mechanism of fraud exposed by the illegal changes to election procedure:
soo, 0?
> 0
With absolutely no evidence, you feel it is justified to try to send fake electors so that the loser becomes the winner?
With an phony election system I feel justified in armed counterattacks against anyone who dares to cloak themselves in the US constitution until such time as democracy is restored.
Sending alternate slates of electors or rejecting them (as Pence was asked to do) is to me is less than the least that should have been done.
If Trump had tried to stay in office without a true election that would be exactly as treasonous as what the deep state and fanatical left-tribe did to "win" 2020. Then he should have been shot as the deep state currently deserves to be shot.
so your argument is, there is no evidence of fraud, but we should assume there was fraud?
My claim is that regardless of whether there is evidence of fraud, if the procedure/system is such that fraud would not leave evidence the result must be treated as fraudulent.
This is true in any structure or procedure where trust and verifiability is intrinsic to the inclusion of the consumer.
This is true in science: If a scientist makes a claim, says it's based on data, but refuses to provide experimental procedures and the raw data his conclusion must be treated as fraudulent. Repeatability of observation is intrinsic to the scientific process, and even the slightest hint that the observations cannot be repeated and the 'scientist' is trying to hide this fact is enough to place the whole outside of the realm of science.
This is true in banking: If you deposit money to an investment bank, then when you try to withdraw they claim they invested and lost it; they owe you a fully auditable record of what they did with your money. A bank that cannot be audited must be treated no differently from a scam.
So too in elections: Either fraud must be ruled out by systematic design or the results must be verifiable after the fact (preferably both). If the election can be stolen without leaving proof (evidence) behind it must be treated as fraudulent. It is not sufficient and never has been to write down totals in a dark back rooms and declare yourself a democracy.
There is no evidence of fraud and you want to use the lack of evidence of fraud, as evidence of fraud.
There is both evidence of fraud and proof that the procedure was systematically unable to rule out outcome changing fraud. The inability to rule out significant fraud is sufficient. The treason is amplified and made even more outrageous by the fact that there is evidence of fraud.
Let me put it this way, would you be making the same arguments if trump won? I mean, the same system would have been used so trump's victory would be the same chance of fraud?
If the so called election was conducted in the same manner and I saw the same evidence of fraud then I would not say Trump won because that would be impossible to know.
Would I and so many others learned how the elections are actually carried out had Trump not warned about mass mail in ballots? Probably not.
Do you think Trump is the first one to point out that mass mail in voting circumvents several critical components in the fraud prevention strategy? If you do you're very wrong.
Someone considerably more intelligent than Trump saw this coming. He was convinced and sounded the alarm.
By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too. By your logic, trump's victory in 2016 was fraudulent too.
There was not mass (often unsolicited) mail in voting in 2016. So no it wouldn't. Also the right tribe in 2016 didn't have the equivalent of TDS. Even now they haven't risen to that level.
