Michigan Board Certifies Election

@shavixmir said
No, he won’t tell us who he used to be.

He’s one of those right-wing incels who’s come back under a different name.

Come on, man, it's not that hard.

He's Patzering.

@suzianne said
Come on, man, it's not that hard.

He's Patzering.

Chessturd surely?

@shavixmir said
No, he won’t tell us who he used to be.

He’s one of those right-wing incels who’s come back under a different name.

He never was who he used to be. He was never anyone at all.

😏

@cheesemaster said
Sonhouse was the only one who figured me out.

Many names ago he said I had no affiliation.
He said I just wanted chaos.

I hate sonhouse. 😒

But you hate yourself more.

@no1marauder said
Sorry, Trumpsters:

"The Michigan board in charge of certifying election results cast a pivotal vote Monday to validate the state's tallies, cementing Democratic President-elect Joe Biden's victory despite unproven claims of fraud levied by Republican President Donald Trump.

The Board of State Canvassers voted to certify the results after taking about three hours of ...[text shortened]... news.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/23/michigan-election-state-canvassers-certification/6390475002/

Shinkle's a fence-sitting wimp. Van Langevelde is among the few vocal Republican politicians (including Romney,) who understand that the rule of law is more important than who is currently occupying a particular post. Now, if they would publicly acknowledge that there are also Democrats who understand that, then there's a chance to start repairing the damage Trump's personality cult has wreaked upon American politics.

Pennsylvania has also certified Biden as the winner in that State. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-8a61a1609d7a0d60c1db13fa8e7c3019

@no1marauder


Well, that clinches it. But bear in mind that Trump is fighting for his liberty, literally. There are several suits already running, just waiting for his immunity to expire. If he were to be re-elected, the statute of limitations for some of the pending cases against him would expire by 2024, whereas, if he's no longer president on 21.1.21, he is liable to end up in prison. One can understand his desperate measures to stay in office.

@no1marauder said
You've said a lot of stupid things that being one of them.

Biden never took legal action. It was a bluff.

Nobody made Trump do anything. It was the GSA all along. She said she didn't feel she should act hastily and violate the constitution.

You have said a lot of stupid things. You are projecting.

@metal-brain said
Biden never took legal action. It was a bluff.

Nobody made Trump do anything. It was the GSA all along. She said she didn't feel she should act hastily and violate the constitution.

You have said a lot of stupid things. You are projecting.

Biden got what he wanted within a week of threatening legal action.

@no1marauder said
Biden got what he wanted within a week of threatening legal action.

That is not true. He threatened legal action long ago.

@metal-brain said
That is not true. He threatened legal action long ago.

Sorry, within two weeks: https://www.axios.com/biden-transition-threatens-legal-action-on-gsa-decision-06d35179-3856-48b7-94bc-595d7c479a13.html

He got what he wanted without filing suit which would, in all probability, been tied up for weeks at least as I already explained to you. Sometimes the mere threat of litigation is sufficient to make the one it is directed at bend to your will esp. when other types of pressure are applied:

"On Monday afternoon, lawmakers on the two committees rejected the administration’s proposal.

“Every additional day that is wasted is a day that the safety, health, and well-being of the American people is imperiled as the incoming Biden-Harris Administration is blocked from fully preparing for the coronavirus pandemic, our nation’s dire economic crisis, and our national security,” said House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney, House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey and Reps. Gerry Connolly and Mike Quigley.

The lawmakers have instead indicated they want a briefing from Murphy on Tuesday and offered her a range of times throughout the day based on her convenience."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/23/democrats-reject-gsa-transition-439756

Murphy obviously did not want to testify under oath in Congress as she would be in legal peril if she kept ridiculously insisting that there was no direction from the White House to withhold ascertainment.

@no1marauder said
Sorry, within two weeks: https://www.axios.com/biden-transition-threatens-legal-action-on-gsa-decision-06d35179-3856-48b7-94bc-595d7c479a13.html

He got what he wanted without filing suit which would, in all probability, been tied up for weeks at least as I already explained to you. Sometimes the mere threat of litigation is sufficient to make the one it is directed at ...[text shortened]... t ridiculously insisting that there was no direction from the White House to withhold ascertainment.

So you are accusing her of lying?

@metal-brain said
So you are accusing her of lying?

As I already posted:

"Rather hilariously while in the letter Commissioner Murphy denies be pressured indirectly or directly "with regard to the substance or timing of my decision" the Donald tweeted almost immediately "I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953

Yes, I find her claim unbelievable and I think that any fair-minded person would too. That Trump didn't personally direct or have someone tell her not to go forward with the ascertainment despite the clarity of the Presidential Transition Act is simply farfetched.

@no1marauder said
As I already posted:

"Rather hilariously while in the letter Commissioner Murphy denies be pressured indirectly or directly "with regard to the substance or timing of my decision" the Donald tweeted almost immediately "I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."

https://t ...[text shortened]... with the ascertainment despite the clarity of the Presidential Transition Act is simply farfetched.

But you have no evidence of that. It is merely your suspicion.