dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
Hermie seeds are here!
Trump's pardons, what it means for them
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
You are a racist, it is evident in your posts and the words you use, even if you are not you are an enemy of liberty, but you are. Most racists won't admit it, even here, they know it is wrong, they can lose their job or business for being a racist, so folks are careful, a lot don't even admit it to themselves.
Face it, you support Trump and that either makes you an idiot of a racist and most likely both. A list of Trump's crimes is an easy ask, too easy, it's a simple cut and past job from the web, but such a long list would clutter up pages of this thread. But since it concerns Trump's pardons of criminal associates and by extension crimes, here is and article for the benefit of others, you won't read it. So have a quick look and call it fake news then go back to OAN, newsmax, or whatever disinformation source you suckers are programmed by.
The Criminal Case Against Donald Trump Is in the Works (nymag.com)
POLITICS SEPT. 14, 2020
The People v. Donald J. Trump
The criminal case against him is already in the works — and it could go to trial sooner than you think.
The leader would be convicted and sent to a concrete cell.
The date was October 19, 2012. The man was Silvio Berlusconi, the longtime prime minister of Italy.
Here in the United States, we have never yet witnessed such an event. No commander-in-chief has been charged with a criminal offense, let alone faced prison time. But if Donald Trump loses the election in November, he will forfeit not only a sitting president’s presumptive immunity from prosecution but also the levers of power he has aggressively co-opted for his own protection. Considering the number of crimes he has committed, the time span over which he has committed them, and the range of jurisdictions in which his crimes have taken place, his potential legal exposure is breathtaking. More than a dozen investigations are already under way against him and his associates. Even if only one or two of them result in criminal charges, the proceedings that follow will make the O. J. Simpson trial look like an afternoon in traffic court.
It may seem unlikely that Trump will ever wind up in a criminal court. His entire life, after all, is one long testament to the power of getting away with things, a master class in criminality without consequences, even before he added presidentiality and all its privileges to his arsenal of defenses. As he himself once said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” But for all his advantages and all his enablers, including loyalists in the Justice Department and the federal judiciary, Trump now faces a level of legal risk unlike anything in his notoriously checkered past — and well beyond anything faced by any previous president leaving office. To assess the odds that he will end up on trial, and how the proceedings would unfold, I spoke with some of the country’s top prosecutors, defense attorneys, and legal scholars. For the past four years, they have been weighing the case against Trump: the evidence already gathered, the witnesses prepared to testify, the political and constitutional issues involved in prosecuting an ex-president. Once he leaves office, they agree, there is good reason to think Trump will face criminal charges. “It’s going to head toward prosecution, and the litigation is going to be fierce,” says Bennett Gershman, a professor of constitutional law at Pace Law School who served for a decade as a New York State prosecutor.
see post below...
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Continued
Here, according to the legal experts, is how Trump could become the first former president in American history to find himself on trial — and perhaps even behind bars.
You might think, given all the crimes Trump has bragged about committing during his time in office, that the primary path to prosecuting him would involve the U.S. Justice Department. If Joe Biden is sworn in as president in January, his attorney general will inherit a mountain of criminal evidence against Trump accumulated by Robert Mueller and a host of inspectors general and congressional oversight committees. If the DOJ’s incoming leadership green-lights an investigation of Trump after being briefed on any sensitive matters contained in the evidence, federal prosecutors will move forward“at the fastest pace they can,” says Mary McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security.
They’ll have plenty of potential charges to choose from. Both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee — a Republican-led panel — have extensively documented how Trump committed obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 73), lied to investigators (18 U.S. Code § 1001), and conspired with Russian intelligence to commit an offense against the United States (18 U.S. Code § 371). All three crimes carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison — per charge. According to legal experts, federal prosecutors could be ready to indict Trump on one or more of these felonies as early as the first quarter of 2021.
But prosecuting Trump for any crimes he committed as president would face two significant and perhaps fatal hurdles. First, on his way out of office, Trump could decide to preemptively pardon himself. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he issues a broad, sweeping pardon for any U.S. citizen who was a subject, a target, or a person of interest of the Mueller investigation,” says Norm Eisen, who served as counsel to House Democrats during Trump’s impeachment. Since scholars are divided on whether a self-pardon would be constitutional, what happens next would depend almost entirely on which judge ruled on the issue. “One judge might say, ‘Sorry, presidential pardons is something the Constitution grants exclusively to the president, so I’m going to dismiss this,’ ” says Gershman. “Another judge might say, ‘No, the president can’t pardon himself.’ ” Either way, the case would almost certainly wind up getting litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, perhaps more than once, causing a long delay.
Even if the courts ultimately ruled a self-pardon unconstitutional, another big hurdle would remain: Trump’s claims that “executive privilege” bars prosecutors from obtaining evidence of presidential misconduct. The provision has traditionally been limited to shielding discussions between presidents and their advisers from external scrutiny. But Trump has attempted to expand the protection to include pretty much anything that he or anyone in the executive branch has ever done. William Consovoy, one of Trump’s lawyers, famously argued in federal court that even if Trump gunned someone down in the street while he was president, he could not be prosecuted for it while in office. Although the courts have repeatedly ruled against such sweeping arguments, Trump will continue to claim immunity from the judicial process after he leaves office — a surefire delaying tactic. “If federal charges were ever brought, it is unlikely that a trial would be scheduled or start anytime in the foreseeable future,” says Timothy W. Hoover, president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. By the time any federal charges come to trial, Trump is likely to be either senile or dead. Even if he broke the law as president, the experts agree, he may well get away with it.
But federal charges aren’t the likeliest way that The People v. Donald J. Trump will play out. State laws aren’t subject to presidential pardons, and they cover a host of crimes beyond those committed in the White House. When it comes to charging a former president, state attorneys general and county prosecutors can go places a U.S. Attorney can’t.
According to legal experts, the man most likely to drag Trump into court is the district attorney for Manhattan, Cyrus Vance Jr. It’s a surprising scenario, given Vance’s well-deserved reputation as someone who has gone easy on the rich and famous. After taking office in 2010, he sought to reduce Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a sex offender, dropped an investigation into whether Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. had committed fraud in the marketing of the Trump Soho, and initially decided not to prosecute Harvey Weinstein despite solid evidence of his sex crimes. “He has a reputation for being particularly cautious when it comes to going after rich people, because he knows that those are the ones who can afford the really formidable law firms,” says Victoria Bassetti, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice who served on the team of lawyers that oversaw the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. “And like most prosecutors, Vance is exceptionally protective of his win-loss rate.”
But it was Vance who stepped up when the federal case against Trump faltered. “He’s a politician,” observes Martin Sheil, a former IRS criminal investigator. “He’s got his finger up. He knows which way the wind’s blowing, and he knows the wind in New York is blowing against Trump. It’s in his political interest to join that bandwagon.”
Last year, after U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District dropped their investigation into the hush money that Trump had paid Stormy Daniels, Vance took up the case. Suspecting that l’affaire Stormy might prove to be part of a larger pattern of shady dealings, his office started digging into Trump’s finances. What Vance is investigating, according to court filings, is evidence of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” potentially involving bank fraud, tax fraud, and insurance fraud. The New York Times has detailed how Trump and his family have long falsified records to avoid taxes, and during testimony before Congress in 2019, Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen stated that Trump had inflated the value of his assets to obtain a bank loan.
Crucially, all of these alleged crimes occurred before Trump took office. That means no claims of executive privilege would apply to any charges Vance might bring, and no presidential pardon could make them go away. A whole slew of potential objections and delays would be ruled out right off the bat. What’s more, the alleged offenses took place less than six years ago, within the statute of limitation for fraud in New York. Vance, in other words, is free to go after Trump not as a crooked president but as a common crook who happened to get elected president. And the fact that he has been pursuing these cases while Trump is president is a sign that he won’t be intimidated by the stature of the office after Trump leaves it.
more...
Here, according to the legal experts, is how Trump could become the first former president in American history to find himself on trial — and perhaps even behind bars.
You might think, given all the crimes Trump has bragged about committing during his time in office, that the primary path to prosecuting him would involve the U.S. Justice Department. If Joe Biden is sworn in as president in January, his attorney general will inherit a mountain of criminal evidence against Trump accumulated by Robert Mueller and a host of inspectors general and congressional oversight committees. If the DOJ’s incoming leadership green-lights an investigation of Trump after being briefed on any sensitive matters contained in the evidence, federal prosecutors will move forward“at the fastest pace they can,” says Mary McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security.
They’ll have plenty of potential charges to choose from. Both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee — a Republican-led panel — have extensively documented how Trump committed obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 73), lied to investigators (18 U.S. Code § 1001), and conspired with Russian intelligence to commit an offense against the United States (18 U.S. Code § 371). All three crimes carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison — per charge. According to legal experts, federal prosecutors could be ready to indict Trump on one or more of these felonies as early as the first quarter of 2021.
But prosecuting Trump for any crimes he committed as president would face two significant and perhaps fatal hurdles. First, on his way out of office, Trump could decide to preemptively pardon himself. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he issues a broad, sweeping pardon for any U.S. citizen who was a subject, a target, or a person of interest of the Mueller investigation,” says Norm Eisen, who served as counsel to House Democrats during Trump’s impeachment. Since scholars are divided on whether a self-pardon would be constitutional, what happens next would depend almost entirely on which judge ruled on the issue. “One judge might say, ‘Sorry, presidential pardons is something the Constitution grants exclusively to the president, so I’m going to dismiss this,’ ” says Gershman. “Another judge might say, ‘No, the president can’t pardon himself.’ ” Either way, the case would almost certainly wind up getting litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, perhaps more than once, causing a long delay.
Even if the courts ultimately ruled a self-pardon unconstitutional, another big hurdle would remain: Trump’s claims that “executive privilege” bars prosecutors from obtaining evidence of presidential misconduct. The provision has traditionally been limited to shielding discussions between presidents and their advisers from external scrutiny. But Trump has attempted to expand the protection to include pretty much anything that he or anyone in the executive branch has ever done. William Consovoy, one of Trump’s lawyers, famously argued in federal court that even if Trump gunned someone down in the street while he was president, he could not be prosecuted for it while in office. Although the courts have repeatedly ruled against such sweeping arguments, Trump will continue to claim immunity from the judicial process after he leaves office — a surefire delaying tactic. “If federal charges were ever brought, it is unlikely that a trial would be scheduled or start anytime in the foreseeable future,” says Timothy W. Hoover, president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. By the time any federal charges come to trial, Trump is likely to be either senile or dead. Even if he broke the law as president, the experts agree, he may well get away with it.
But federal charges aren’t the likeliest way that The People v. Donald J. Trump will play out. State laws aren’t subject to presidential pardons, and they cover a host of crimes beyond those committed in the White House. When it comes to charging a former president, state attorneys general and county prosecutors can go places a U.S. Attorney can’t.
According to legal experts, the man most likely to drag Trump into court is the district attorney for Manhattan, Cyrus Vance Jr. It’s a surprising scenario, given Vance’s well-deserved reputation as someone who has gone easy on the rich and famous. After taking office in 2010, he sought to reduce Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a sex offender, dropped an investigation into whether Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. had committed fraud in the marketing of the Trump Soho, and initially decided not to prosecute Harvey Weinstein despite solid evidence of his sex crimes. “He has a reputation for being particularly cautious when it comes to going after rich people, because he knows that those are the ones who can afford the really formidable law firms,” says Victoria Bassetti, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice who served on the team of lawyers that oversaw the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. “And like most prosecutors, Vance is exceptionally protective of his win-loss rate.”
But it was Vance who stepped up when the federal case against Trump faltered. “He’s a politician,” observes Martin Sheil, a former IRS criminal investigator. “He’s got his finger up. He knows which way the wind’s blowing, and he knows the wind in New York is blowing against Trump. It’s in his political interest to join that bandwagon.”
Last year, after U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District dropped their investigation into the hush money that Trump had paid Stormy Daniels, Vance took up the case. Suspecting that l’affaire Stormy might prove to be part of a larger pattern of shady dealings, his office started digging into Trump’s finances. What Vance is investigating, according to court filings, is evidence of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” potentially involving bank fraud, tax fraud, and insurance fraud. The New York Times has detailed how Trump and his family have long falsified records to avoid taxes, and during testimony before Congress in 2019, Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen stated that Trump had inflated the value of his assets to obtain a bank loan.
Crucially, all of these alleged crimes occurred before Trump took office. That means no claims of executive privilege would apply to any charges Vance might bring, and no presidential pardon could make them go away. A whole slew of potential objections and delays would be ruled out right off the bat. What’s more, the alleged offenses took place less than six years ago, within the statute of limitation for fraud in New York. Vance, in other words, is free to go after Trump not as a crooked president but as a common crook who happened to get elected president. And the fact that he has been pursuing these cases while Trump is president is a sign that he won’t be intimidated by the stature of the office after Trump leaves it.
more...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Your bias is showing through, you can't even look at it, imagine what internal perceptual filtering is going on inside your head. You gotta shut down whole sections of your brain to maintain the delusion, but fear and subsequent hate help a lot with that. If you don't think Trump is desperate, delusional and stupid, you haven't been paying attention, there's a reason for that, your conditioning and your lack of psychological resources to rise above it's self destructive effects upon you and your country.
I call you a traitor because you are, a literal one, anybody who voted for Trump is, he ran against the constitution of the USA, the rule of law and the founding ethos of the nation while attacking democracy itself by disenfranchising voters. There was nothing secret about it, his voters knew it was a war on America and everything it stood for and against. The crime of treason is defined in the US constitution and is the only crime thus specified and it requires a declaration of war. I accuse you and every other Trump voter of not just moral failure, but of literal treason too, not legal treason, but every bit as bad. You and they knew what you were doing and what Trump was doing too, sure your heads were filled with bullshit of your own choosing that you chased after, but you knew.
Dylan Roof summed you folks up succinctly when he said, "they are taking over" to the cops, as justification for mass murder at a black church. The same thing drives you, fear.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Hopefully soon to be 52 states
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
'A Danger': Trump Insider Who Went To Prison On Trump’s Life After WH | The Beat With Ari Melber
With Trump’s time in office dwindling, his former personal attorney Michael Cohen joins MSNBC’s Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber to discuss the potential legal fallout Trump may face when he is no longer president. Cohen explains his role in providing a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and confirms Trump directed him and collaborated with him to do so, and argues that Trump will “sell national security information to the highest bidder” and pose “danger” to the country.
With Trump’s time in office dwindling, his former personal attorney Michael Cohen joins MSNBC’s Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber to discuss the potential legal fallout Trump may face when he is no longer president. Cohen explains his role in providing a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and confirms Trump directed him and collaborated with him to do so, and argues that Trump will “sell national security information to the highest bidder” and pose “danger” to the country.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
As Trump Mulls Self-Pardon, Legal Headaches Mount After WH | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC
President Trump is mulling an unprecedented self-pardon, raising questions about what federal crime he would pardon himself for. MSNBC’s Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on Trump's potential legal exposure after leaving office, emphasizing that the rule of law requires any consideration of an ex-President's exposure focus on the evidence, not one's views of the ex-President or his policies. Melber reports on a specific convicted crime that Trump was allegedly involved in, reporting on both sides of any potential case regarding that offense. This is an excerpt from a longer special report.
President Trump is mulling an unprecedented self-pardon, raising questions about what federal crime he would pardon himself for. MSNBC’s Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on Trump's potential legal exposure after leaving office, emphasizing that the rule of law requires any consideration of an ex-President's exposure focus on the evidence, not one's views of the ex-President or his policies. Melber reports on a specific convicted crime that Trump was allegedly involved in, reporting on both sides of any potential case regarding that offense. This is an excerpt from a longer special report.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
How DC is Building its Case Against the Trump Organization | The Mehdi Hasan Show
DC Attorney General Karl Racine joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss his investigation into the alleged overcharging of taxpayers for events at Trump properties.
DC Attorney General Karl Racine joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss his investigation into the alleged overcharging of taxpayers for events at Trump properties.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Tribe: Any Argument That Trump Can Pardon Himself Would Be ‘Incompatible’ With The Constitution
Laurence Tribe tells Lawrence O’Donnell that if Trump tried to pardon himself, his argument would not hold up in court because it goes against the principle that no one is above the law: “If that were the case, then the president would not be below the law, he’d be above it.”
Laurence Tribe tells Lawrence O’Donnell that if Trump tried to pardon himself, his argument would not hold up in court because it goes against the principle that no one is above the law: “If that were the case, then the president would not be below the law, he’d be above it.”
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
They say Merrick Garland is another contender...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones Seen As Leading Contender For Biden's Attorney General Nominee | Craig Melvin | MSNBC
NBC's Geoff Bennett reports that former Alabama Senator Doug Jones is in consideration to be President-elect Biden's nominee to serve as attorney general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones Seen As Leading Contender For Biden's Attorney General Nominee | Craig Melvin | MSNBC
NBC's Geoff Bennett reports that former Alabama Senator Doug Jones is in consideration to be President-elect Biden's nominee to serve as attorney general.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
4 Reasons Why the President Can't Pardon Himself
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Can Pence Pardon Trump?
In this video, Dr. David Adler addresses some questions posted in response to our last video, "4 Reasons Why the President Can't Pardon Himself."
In this video, Dr. David Adler addresses some questions posted in response to our last video, "4 Reasons Why the President Can't Pardon Himself."
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Why Is Lindsey Graham Saying Biden's AG Must Not Investigate Trump? Here is One Big Clue . . .
In a shocking display of impropriety, Senator Lindsey Graham vows that no Attorney General nominated by Biden will be confirmed by the Senate if the nominee intends to investigate Trump's crimes. Why in the world would a sitting senator try to use his position to shield Trump from all criminal accountability?
Here is a review of what Lindsey Graham said about Trump BEFORE Graham told CNN his emails were hacked by Russia and what he said about Trump AFTER his emails were hacked by Russia. This is what we career prosecutors would call . . . a clue.
In a shocking display of impropriety, Senator Lindsey Graham vows that no Attorney General nominated by Biden will be confirmed by the Senate if the nominee intends to investigate Trump's crimes. Why in the world would a sitting senator try to use his position to shield Trump from all criminal accountability?
Here is a review of what Lindsey Graham said about Trump BEFORE Graham told CNN his emails were hacked by Russia and what he said about Trump AFTER his emails were hacked by Russia. This is what we career prosecutors would call . . . a clue.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
He should pardon gomers toof.
www.thedailybeast.com
Rep. Louie Gohmert’s Tooth Appears to Fall Out Mid-Press Conference
Representatives from the Texas Republican’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Daily Beast.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
I voted in elections since the early 60s and this has been the craziest four years I've ever seen in my life.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
This is the craziest President you've seen and the GOP has completed it's transformation as a fascist party. Oh they will try to crawl back to respectability in the future, but if they should ever lose the senate the investigations will destroy many of them. It's the base you have to attack, divide and whittle them down and going after their disinformation network of TV and hate radio is a big part of it. Use their covid content against them in public hearings (especially if you win the senate) to get rid of OAN, Newsmax and hate radio. If you win the senate you can take out all three and make new laws and give the FCC jurisdiction over cable and large scale social media companies. Make FOXnews accountable for it's covid coverage too, including the "opinion" hosts, they helped to murder many people.
This is not normal politics, this is national survival for the next decade at least, Trump got 74 million votes, imagine if they put lipstick on the same kind of pig? In spite of everything 74 million moral failures were eager for the rest of America to join a suicide cult. Drastic measures are required, no half measures or efforts, investigate everything, use the courts and charge everybody right down to jaywalking. Try to send as many traitors as you can to prison, they betrayed their oaths and the constitution, only a fool would let them walk back from that, they only betray the constitution once, they should get no second chances.
Prosecute the politicians and other guilty parties to the fullest extent you can and for all 2020 election crimes or just outright sedition. Win the senate and you could do a lot to safeguard the future, HR1 and statehood for Puerto Rico and DC, 4 more senators. Cut off the disinformation system, brainwash and manipulate the base mercilessly, they are traitors too, they supported the destruction of the constitution, democratic institutions and the disenfranchisement of Americans.
If you win the senate there are lots of laws that can be made that will tie the fuckers down and put the fanatics in prison. Clean the prisons out of innocent or harmless black folks and make room for the good old boys who make death threats to public officials. If you sell a burner phone with out taking a picture of the identification and the customer, you become liable for the crimes committed with it, dido for all cellphone sim cards and phones. Everybody has a cellphone, require them to use them and retain the evidence for a year or two.
Bear420
Well-Known Member
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone just have to bring up Hillary, While Trumps out hitting golf balls and over a Quarter Million innocent American's Died. You are one Stupid Ass Son of a Bitch. Oh don't forget Bill Barr who actually put his head on the chopping block for Trump but then actually tells American's the truth and Trump wants him gone. I Mean how fucking stupid are you ? rhetorical question BTW. Don't bother answering it. You want to live in a Country run by a Dictator go live with the Kim's They love Idiots like you !!
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Take it easy, Man! You have to look at who it is that you are responding to. This guy says he lives in Georgia, and is 27 years old.
IOW he's not fully mature yet, and therefore still pretty much clueless.
Bear420
Well-Known Member
Yeppers !!
I ask how far is this going to go, we have until the 14th of this month, I don't trust these republican's at all even though they certified the results it really don't mean shit until those cast their electoral votes.
I am telling you this isn't over until he's out of that White House and it may not happen.
All we can do is trust that those who cast the electoral votes have more integrity than Trump does.
82 million people have faith, One person has power. what is going to happen ?
There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.
I ask how far is this going to go, we have until the 14th of this month, I don't trust these republican's at all even though they certified the results it really don't mean shit until those cast their electoral votes.
I am telling you this isn't over until he's out of that White House and it may not happen.
All we can do is trust that those who cast the electoral votes have more integrity than Trump does.
82 million people have faith, One person has power. what is going to happen ?
There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.
In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.
Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:
States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors
| Alabama (Ala. Code §17-14-31) | Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. §208.46) |
| Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090) | Montana (Mont. Code Ann. §13-25-307) |
| Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-212) | Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-714) |
| California (Cal. Elec. Code §6906) | Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. §298.075) |
| Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-4-304) | New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-15-9) |
| Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176) | North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-212) |
| Delaware (Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, §4303(b)) | Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit.26 §10-102) |
District of Columbia (D.C. Code §1-1001.0 | Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code §3505.40) |
| Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021) | Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §248.355) |
| Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. §14-2 | South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. §7-19-80) |
| Indiana (Ind. Code §3-10-4-1.7) | Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §2-15-104) |
| Iowa (Iowa Code §54. | |
| Maine (Me. Stat. tit.21-A, §805) | Vermont (Vt. Stat. Ann. §2732) |
| Maryland (Md. Code Ann. §8-505) | Virginia (Va. Code Ann. §24.2-203) |
| Massachusetts (Mass Gen. Laws ch.53, § | Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56.090) |
| Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws §168.47) | Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. §7.75) |
| Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §208.46) | Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §22-19-10 |
Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.