Well lets start with all of the lies about the election results.
Not a fact. Just your opinion. In fact, most people believe Trump believes what he says.
He has used these lies to sow doubt and distrust in our electoral system.
Not a fact, just an unfounded opinion. It's also attributing your belief that our electoral system does not deserve to be mistrusted as it is, and your own complicity in not objecting to the legal manipulation of our electoral system by your own team that are actually the source of the doubt and distrust to Trump as some kind of crime.
With no evidence of wide spread fraud he has pushed the idea that multiple states had enough undetected fraud to swing tens of thousands of votes.
He has plenty of evidence of wide spread illegal voting. Indisputable.
He has statistical evidence that indicates the possibility or even liklihood of wide spread fraud. Our system is designed to ensure that no stronger evidence can ever be obtained.
Ergo, this is your lie. He does in fact have evidence of wide spread fraud, you just believe its weak, because the courts won't accept it as proof and won't order the states involved to provide discovery that would allow for proof. It's funny because if you believe this, you're being inconsistent on countless left principals (e.g. systemic racism) that rely completely on statistical anomalies.
Even in states run by Republicans.
I'm most familiar with GA, where the SoS entered into a number of pro-DNC orders despite being a Republican. Not sure why he did that but I suspect his position now is to cover his ass. GA election law look at part (B) requires reviewing the signature on the envelope against 2 signatures on file.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-386.html The clear implication is that if the reviewer does not find that the signatures on file don't match, or the signature on the envelope doesn't match both signatures on file then the ballot has to be rejected and verified. Raffensperger, however, signed on to modify the procedures - apparently in his personal authority - to instead require that the signature on the vote match any
one of the signatures on file and then only to reject if 2 out of 3 reviewers agree that the ballot signature doesn't match any signature on file (including the one that was used to request the ballot).
https://demdoc2.perkinscoieblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf Pretty much a law that used signatures to prevent voter fraud, was modified by Raffensperger personally to facilitate signature fraud. If it turns out that fraud occurred, Raffensperger is facing personal liability, no wonder he's a reformed anti-Trumper that leaked a call to the Washington Post. He's desparately trying to avoid going to jail.
PA, the other I'm most familiar with, was manipulated by DNC officials and judges, even though the legislature was majority Republican.
He then tried to force state leaders to "change" the vote tallies in their states and make him the winner (see phone calls to GA SOS and Governor).
Not what happened. I read the call transcript, and you're just repeating lies about what what was said. Read the entire transcript and try again. 100% clear that Trump's team believed they'd identified fraudulent and illegal votes for Biden at scale that was more than a factor of 10 more than enough to tip the election.
End of day, you seem to be considering it a crime to challenge an illegal election result. What's up with that?
He then tried to have State legislatures over turn the popular vote results in their states.
He tried to have State legislatures investigate whether the "popular" votes were legitimate or the result of illegal voting, manipulation and fraud. Not sure what exactly you think is illegitimate about having the state legislatures (charged by the Constitution with such duty) consider whether the election process was illegally manipulated and led to an illegal, fraudulent and/or false result.
Again, there's nothing there that's a fact, only an outcome oriented conclusion on your part. Essentially, "my team won, ergo it was fair, ergo challenging it is a crime."
He then tried to convince his VP that he could over turn the results on Jan 6.
I still haven't looked at the law in question, have you? It's pretty clear in the write ups (well at least those not written by the frothing left) that what Pence was asked to do was to send the issue to the respective state legislatures. it's a repeat of what they asked the courts to do.
The argument here is quite simple. The elections were illegally modified (pending resolution of a Constitutional question this is more likely than not true), those modifications resulted in illegal votes and in increased ease of fraudulent votes, we have statistical evidence of fraudulent votes and actual proof of illegal votes. Do something. The courts won't take the case unless we can prove enough fraudulent votes, and no one will grant us access to the records in a state that are
required to demonstrate fraud. Effectively, unless the state officials directly involved in the fraud prove the fraud for us we can never have standing or be granted relief in the courts, and that's before you consider that many of the courts have their own political interests involved. However, you - the state legislature - are the party charged with the Constitutional duty to appoint electors, you are the party that was harmed when the process you set for this was illegally and unConstitutionally modified, you are the party that can demand and receive all relevant information, you are the party that determine if bad faith decisions resulted in an improper result, and ultimately, you can decide to affirm the election results, or to reject them and grant relief (they have more than one choice for relief).
It's really a play on the argument that if these elections were evaluated by someone with all the evidence at hand they would be overturned. If you believe the elections were actually fair, this process should prove they were fair. If you believe, as I think you do, that they were not fair then this creates the possibility that it would be proven that they were not fair.
Each of these things are efforts to over turn the legal election of Joe Biden.
Each of these are efforts to demonstrate the legal election of Donald Trump, and the illegality of the election of Joe Biden. Doesn't mean that Trump's right about the underlying facts, but what you said is just assuming the conclusion.
Using this plan Trump has been trying to get his followers to bully politicians into changing the results of the election.
Again, not a fact. This was clearly designed to get an evaluation of the election improprieties. You can't point to a single place - any where or at any time - where Trump's team purported to dictate to the State legislatures how they would have to rule. I'm pretty sure that is because they believe it's self evident that fraud and illegal voting occurred and that an investigation not hampered by the court's processes designed to deny relief on standing and to block access to information would demonstrate publically to everyone that the election was stolen.
Just stop for one second, and consider that. If an investigation would demonstrate to the public that an election was in fact stolen, does any part of what you said hold together?
That is insurrection.
That's not insurrection. What you just discussed were all challenges to a fraudulent election, if you characterize that as insurrection all you're really saying is that opposing cheating to win an election is a crime.
msquared
Singing it doesn't help. Go back and prove something or provide a fact rather than a conclusion.
