Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,159
2,473
136
I don't know how accurate this is, but it certainly seems possible, even probable. We shall see.


"Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw efforts in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico) that Trump lost, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme.

One fake elector from Michigan boasted at a recent event hosted by a local Republican organization that the Trump campaign directed the entire operation."



 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,260
5,437
126
CNN's legal department is gonna have fun with this bombshell of a story. No way the evidence isn't going to become public in short order
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
19,773
6,495
136

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,260
5,437
126
So now you're telling me there is evidence of voter fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election. You lefties can't make up your damn minds. It's no wonder no one trusts anything you have to say.
*clap*
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
5,667
654
126
Could have posted in this thread.

So much criming so few threads.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,986
4,627
136
Apparently Rudy does not care about the legacy he's leaving behind because as sordid and as incriminating his words and deeds have been, he has expressed no remorse nor has he held himself accountable for his actions. I guess he simply doesn't care.

It seems he and Lindell are medicating themselves with the same hallucinogenic recreational pharma because they're both freaked out and delusional to the point of being comical yet scary.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
18,454
3,336
126
God dammit can we just stop with all the EC bullshit and simply do most votes is the winner. Seems to solve a lot of problems imo.
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,471
11,390
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
I like how you attempt to reason away a few swing states as a “democratic blip” and at the same time completely ignore the fact that no state votes 100% for any politician running for office and yet that larger “demographic blip” isn’t ok in your book.

Your logic skills are severely lacking.

Oh and by the way, the states don’t elect the president, political parties do.

Oh and another fun fact for you; the electoral college wasn’t created to give small states more say (that’s what the senate is for), it was created to give slave holding states more say because they had a large non voting population. The difference, I’m guessing, is lost on you.

So not only is your logic flawed but you are poorly informed as well.

 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,260
5,437
126
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
So, land area counts, people don't. Gotcha.
Nevermind that or current system allows a minority (as little as 20% with the right states) determine the president, or that votes in California literally count for less than courts in Wyoming or another low population state.

Maybe Republicans need better policies instead so they can actually win the popular vote?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,064
6,311
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
The only possible way that a handful of states can elect anything is by the Electoral College.

Did you read what you wrote before hitting Post Reply? You might want to try again, perhaps you could red herring the typical "cities would elect the President" tried and slightly-less-incorrect talking point?

The Electoral College is easily one of the most dumb-as-fuck ways the President could be "chosen" instead of elected, because that is literally what fucking happens via the Electoral College.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,471
11,390
136
What the 2016 election showed was that the electoral college is wasn’t any smarter than the general voting population like the founding fathers thought they would be. In fact if we look at presidents who won the electoral college vote but lost the popular and how they performed we can easily see that the general population was actually better at picking the better candidate.

I used to be a strong proponent of the electoral college because I too mistakenly thought that the electors would be smarter and less likely to elect a strongman. The electoral college should be removed as both reasons for its existence have been invalidated. Slavery doesn’t exist and the electoral college is worse than the electorate at selecting the best candidate.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
18,735
8,098
136
Team Maddow has it too

I think Rudy is about to get the Cohen treatment.

Rudy who? That dude under the bus? Never met him.






Rudy is going to jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
18,735
8,098
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
So if I was mega rich, all I had to do, to buy a presidency, is to buy a couple of those "less popular states" ... say, run em over with evangelism or some bullshit, and tell them what to vote.
Thats a fucking grand idea Greenman, did you come up with that yourself? I must say, did not see that level of scheming in you... maybe you're smarter than I thought.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,696
6,007
136
Donald "The Don" Trump 1/21/2022-

"My phone call to the Secretary of State of Georgia was perfect, perhaps even more so than my call with the Ukrainian President, if that’s possible. I knew there were large numbers of people on the line, including numerous lawyers for both sides. Although I assumed the call may have been inappropriately, and perhaps illegally, recorded, I was not informed of that. I didn’t say anything wrong in the call, made while I was President on behalf of the United States of America…"

So ...."The Don" declares that this phone wall was even more bigly perfecter than the other one...

I'm assuming by “perfect” he means, "mob-boss style perfect", he doesn’t actually say “do X crime” but makes it PERFECTLY clear what he wants. His Mob boss mentors would be proud of how perfectly he absorbed their lessons.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
10,272
6,890
146
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
You know that votes aren't a zero-sum game right? A candidate can, in fact, cater to both cities and rural regions, CA and WY. In fact, democrats have been doing that for a very, very long time. Republican voters have been convinced that isn't the case, however.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,770
19,823
136
So now you're telling me there is evidence of voter fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election. You lefties can't make up your damn minds. It's no wonder no one trusts anything you have to say.
If only we had more voter ID laws
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,531
23,408
146
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
The Electoral College only ever was a compromise for slave-holders in predominant slave-holding states. The EC was never proposed and never implemented to "give equal rights to less-populated states." It was, as spelled out by the framers if you ever care to read how these things actually work, a compromise to give states with fewer white males a competitive advantage over those with more white males. (Oh, and only land-owning white males, at that).

That is a plain fact. You would probably reject this fact of history, though, because you think it is "CRT?" But that is why the EC exists. There is no legitimate reason to keep the EC, then, from 1865 on, but then Johnson's continuance of Southern Treason during Reconstruction ensured that the ancestors of white, slave-owning landholders would forever maintain this systemic imbalance, despite the institution of slavery no longer existing.

So, an inarguable fact of "all history" (as our other lazy, low-thinking conservative pcgeek likes to call it) is that the EC exists only in the shadow of an institution that no longer exists. Why continue to support this pillar of slave-holding privilege? We're at the moment where support of the EC really is nothing more than an overwhelming desire to return humans to bondage. I guess the actual question here, then, is why you want to see slavery return to the US? That's exactly what you want when you support the EC. it is no other way.

But you know, not reading is a good way to keep yourself ignorant of how things work.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY