Fraud: See Jan. 6 Witnesses Confronted With Coup Evidence On TV

I hope you're listening Ron. We're getting closer to the truth, which is that what you call legal electors are in fact frauds.

Steve, I agree, we are getting closer to the TRUTH.

The question was asked: Was it Wrong to storm The Capital? YES!

Next question, Was it wrong to try to overturn the election to keep Trump in office? NO, not illegally.

Now, I want to understand what I mean when you said: "Which is that what you call legal electors are in fact frauds."Please Explain."

They are frauds because they lock out everyone who is not a Republican or Democrat party operative. Listen carefully Ron. THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL PARTIES. I'm tired of you folks pretending stupidity.

NO!!! Steve, I agree with you and that is why Republicans tried to pull off that fraud in plain sight and got busted for that bull. Now do you want to talk about this report and remark on these three Eye Witnesses to this event of "Fraud: See Jan. 6 Witnesses Confronted With Coup Evidence On TV?"

I have an idea Ron, let's wait and see if there are any charges brought. There won't be, because no state OR federal law was broken.

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.

It is looking clearer and clearer as each day passes that your pick to run this country, it appears Donald J. Trump Have Committed Felony Voter Fraud in The 2020 Presidential Elections. Steve, you remember these words don't you:

"I just want to find 11,780 votes," he told Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Trump knew that he had lost then and by how much 11,780 votes. That Steve is bribery and as you already know that trying to bribe a government official that is against federal law.

Ron, you do remember the Michigan state law about selecting Electors? Pull it up for us again.

Steve, you are on the game show “jeopardy” and you have spin the wheel and it landed on $1 million, you can win that jackpot if you answer this question: What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes?" The music plays and now time is up. Your answer is…

168.42 Presidential electors; selection at state political party conventions, certification.
Sec. 42. In the year in which presidential electors are to be elected under section 43, each political party in this state shall choose at its fall state convention a number of candidates for electors of president and vice-president of the United States equal to the number of senators and representatives in congress that this state is entitled to elect. The chairperson and the secretary of the state central committee of each political party shall, within 1 business day after the conclusion of the state convention, forward by registered or certified mail a certificate containing the names of the candidates for electors to the secretary of state. The candidates for electors of president and vice-president who shall be considered elected are those whose names have been certified to the secretary of state by that political party receiving the greatest number of votes for those offices at the next November election.
History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955;Am. 1955, Act 271, Imd. Eff. June 30, 1955;Am. 1956, Act 190, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 1956;Am. 1999, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1999.

Oh!!! I’m sorry, wrong answer…. What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that Steve?

Steve, that is Michigan Legislature - Section 168.42 call it what it is, so people can understand you, OK!

Nobody can say how this law was broken. Can you Ron??

Listen Steve, since this appears that this attempted coup seems to be multistate level the Michigan Attorney General decided to let the feds handle it, so that it that.

Now What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that Steve?

Ron, why are the Democrats and Republicans allowed to have this UNLAWFUL "winner take all" rule? Yes, let the Feds tell us why the States are allowed to perpetuate this travesty. Of course, you have no idea what I'm talking about, instead you will just keep repeating your same INANE question over and over, won't you?

It appears that you will keep running away from answering the question because you know the answer. Now, are you going to answer the question or keep running like a person who doesn’t see the question or know the answer.

Now What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that Steve?

You are acting like a school girl who cannot get there way Steve. (LOL) at YOU.

I will see you tomorrow if you have a answer, with you little hurt feel. I don’t give a damn about your feelings, answer the question.

Poor Steve, RUNNING 🏃‍♀️.

I don't think it was wrong to storm the Capitol.

OK! Now What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that Steve?

The President Ron. The once and future President. You shouldn't have stolen the election. Just look at this Biden mess. The creep even went so far as to sabotage that bridge in Pittsburg, and he's rooting for war in Ukraine too. Sick.

The President of The United States of America today never said that. Steve, you can answer this question, come on, you can do this.

OK! Now What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that Steve?

Pennsylvania court declares state mail-in voting law unconstitutional
Heidi Johnson | Vermont Law School, US
JANUARY 29, 2022 04:24:25 PM
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Friday declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s “no-excuse mail-in voting law,” which permits voters to cast their ballots by mail without providing an excuse for their absence.

Doug McLinko filed suit against Pennsylvania’s Acting Secretary Veronica Degraffenreid, seeking an order declaring that Article XIII-D of the Pennsylvania Election Code violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article XIII-D was added by Act 77, which provides that “any qualified elector may vote by mail.” McLinko contested this provision, arguing that Pennsylvania’s Constitution requires qualified voters to cast their ballots in person at designated polling places unless they satisfy an absentee voting exception.

Acting Secretary Degraffenreid defended no-excuse mail-in voting, arguing that the Pennsylvania Constitution permits voting “by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.” Degraffenreid sought “an order dismissing McLinko’s amended petition with prejudice on procedural grounds or, in the alternative, because it lacks substantive merit.”

The court agreed with McLinko, holding “that Act 77 violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” In its decision, the court stated:

Approximately 1.38 million voters have expressed their interest in voting by mail permanently. If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can ‘be placed upon our statute books.’

In a companion case, Representative Timothy R. Bonner and 13 members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives filed suit with claims that were “identical to those raised by McLinko.” The court again held the voting law unconstitutional, referencing its McLinko decision.

Steve given this statement: "Approximately 1.38 million voters have expressed their interest in voting by mail permanently. If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can ‘be placed upon our statute books.’

You know for a FACT that the people of Pennsylvania will "NOT" vote that change into LAW because there was nothing wrong with the previous state mail-in voting law, NOTHING.

The PA 2020 mail-in vote, every single ballot, has just been ruled Un-Constitutional. The PA Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, because they are a bunch of Democrats. Then the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's why PA has, officially, an alternate slate of Electors.

Is that Right! Then answer this question Steve: Now What Presidential Candidate Trump or Biden said this Steve: "I just want to find 11,780 votes? Who said that, Steve?