Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:08 pm**

Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Did you read the full transcript? To the extent you think Trump's use of the word "find" means he wants Raffensberger to fabricate 11,780 votes, I disagree with you and don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said.

How you interpret it is irrelevant (nor is it the only "reasonable" one). Trump asked a secretary of state to get him enough votes to win.

He should never have been on that call. It should have been his lawyers only. If you want to make the case that he was trying to right a wrong, then your case falls apart the moment Trump steps into the ring personally. It becomes even more tenuous when Trump tells him to get just enough votes to ensure a win for himself.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:11 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:08 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Did you read the full transcript? To the extent you think Trump's use of the word "find" means he wants Raffensberger to fabricate 11,780 votes, I disagree with you and don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said.

How you interpret it is irrelevant. Trump asked a secretary of state to get him enough votes to win.

He should never have been on that call. It should have been his lawyers only. If you want to make the case that he was trying to right a wrong, then your case falls apart the moment Trump steps into the ring personally.

I'm just a lay person here, but "find" sounds more like "fabricate" than "lawfully investigate" when there are only a few days left before certification.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:13 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:08 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Did you read the full transcript? To the extent you think Trump's use of the word "find" means he wants Raffensberger to fabricate 11,780 votes, I disagree with you and don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said.

How you interpret it is irrelevant. Trump asked a secretary of state to get him enough votes to win.

He should never have been on that call. It should have been his lawyers only. If you want to make the case that he was trying to right a wrong, then your case falls apart the moment Trump steps into the ring personally.

Well, whatever. You don't have to listen to me. There's a reason that, after suggesting that Trump "might" have broken the law, every one of the lawyers quoted in that NYT article came to the conclusion that no prosecutor in their right mind would bring that case. This quote sums it up best, I think:

“It is unlikely federal prosecutors would bring such a case,” Mr. Bromwich said. “But it certainly was god awful and unbelievable. But prosecuting a federal crime is obviously a very different thing.”

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:15 pm**

Of course they're not going to pursue it. He's a sitting president. You honestly believe they'd win? That in no way means he's innocent of a crime though. It just means those lawyers are saying they wouldn't touch the case with a ten foot pole. You notice how the word "innocent" is missing from the quote?

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:16 pm**

In other news, this is what Trump’s attorney (former attorney? I can’t keep up...) is publicly accusing Chief Justice Roberts (and others) of being involved in and asserts it is what is driving their “anti-Trump behavior”.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/sta ... 0811616256

The blackmail targets are approached with a gun, a child, & a camera. The target is ordered to rape the child on video. The target is then ordered to shoot the child on video. The target is then owned & controlled by the blackmailers until blackmail evidence loses its value.

These people are fucking sick.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:19 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:58 pm If belief that your actions in a criminal activity were just and necessary was enough to exonerate a person, we'd have a lot fewer people in prison.

It depends on the specific law and its elements, but having the "specific intent" to commit a crime is often one of the elements that needs to be proven by the state. If you don't have the intent to commit fraud and the law in question requires intent, then you don't meet the elements for that crime. I don't know if that's the case in this instance and with this law, but if Trump truly believes that he won the state by 400,000 votes that were illegally suppressed somehow (and in his addled brain, anything is possible), then him asking to find the minimum number of illegally suppressed votes to properly count in order to change the election results is probably not intent to commit fraud.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:21 pm**

That's why some lawyers are saying the only defense Trump would have in a criminal trial over this would be pleading insanity.

I think this WaPo piece sums it up best.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:27 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:15 pm Of course they're not going to pursue it. He's a sitting president. You honestly believe they'd win? That in no way means he's innocent of a crime though. It just means those lawyers are saying they wouldn't touch the case with a ten foot pole. You notice how the word "innocent" is missing from the quote?

Jeebus . . .

First, he's not going to be the sitting president for much longer, and those quoted are not limiting the discussion to whether charges should or could be brought while he's still POTUS. The same problems with the case exist after he's out of office, too.

Second, with respect to the whole "innocence" thing, you know that's not how the law works, right? We don't find people "guilty" or "innocent." Our courts render verdicts of "guilty" or "not guilty." A "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent, just that the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Look, I'm not trying to defend Trump here, and I'm sympathetic to your outrage. In my opinion, the whole Trump presidency is a crime. A crime against rational thought. A crime against compassion. A crime against the environment. A crime against democracy. The list goes on.

But when we're talking about whether he broke a specific law and whether criminal charges can or should be brought against him, that's a different matter.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm**

If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent (sorry..."not guilty") of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:34 pm**

Trump is well aware of operating within the gray areas of the law, and he is well aware of the language he uses. He's a mob boss, plain and simple. And mob bosses don't say, "Go shoot this guy in the head." They speak in coded language and implication.

Just as in the call he made that got him almost impeached, he's going to tiptoe right up to the line -but not cross it - just so he has a little wiggle room if the courts get involved. But anybody with a modicum of common sense knows *exactly* what he's trying to do.

Arguing that Trump didn't break the law here is buying into the same argument his supporters use every time he opens his mouth and gets caught - "he was joking, he didn't mean it, he was talking about something else...."

The rubes he's conned into supporting him might be dense enough to believe that, but most people aren't.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:41 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....

Can I say Jeebus too? That seems to be helping things.

I think part of the disconnect here is that it's not necessarily worth it to look at it from a perspective of whether he actually committed a crime or not. I mean, it can be fun to debate and all, but what's more practical is probably whether he's committed a crime that can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not a criminal lawyer (but then again, aren't we all?) so I won't opine definitively on this (I know - I'm doing the internet wrong), but I can definitely see the challenges that a prosecutor might have to face to prove this charge.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:42 pm**

Does the WH record every call that the president is on? I seem to remember something about that at one point. If so, do they have an obligation to preserve those calls? I know Trump has some ultra secret bunker where he has put some, er, sensitive calls. I'm wondering if the Biden administration will have access to those....

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:43 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:41 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....
Can I say Jeebus too? That seems to be helping things.

I was just following suit as I had been civil in my previous replies I thought.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:43 pm**

https://twitter.com/BeccaFromTX/status/ ... 3515595785

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:46 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:43 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:41 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....
Can I say Jeebus too? That seems to be helping things.

I was just following suit as I had been civil in my previous replies I thought.

Just my way of trying to defuse things without being heavy-handed.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:49 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent (sorry..."not guilty") of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....

Look, I think we're missing each other here because you are talking about moral and ethical concepts like "doing the right thing" but I'm talking about specific legal concepts like whether the statements made on that January 2 call are sufficient to establish that a criminal statute was violated.

I don't know what's in Trump's mind, but I do think it's possible that he really believes at least some of the crazy stuff he sees on social media and regurgitates. Does that mean he's "innocent" in the colloquial sense? No way. But it does mean I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support that position that he's violated a criminal statute in this instance.

[edit to add: Sorry to Jeebus and to hepcat for the invocation of Jeebus and the eye roll. Don't mean to be antagonistic. Apologies.

]

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:06 pm**

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:34 pm Arguing that Trump didn't break the law here is buying into the same argument his supporters use every time he opens his mouth and gets caught - "he was joking, he didn't mean it, he was talking about something else...."

The rubes he's conned into supporting him might be dense enough to believe that, but most people aren't.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:13 pm**

One of the things, and there aren’t many, that Trump is very, very good at is finding the small gray area between overtly criminal activity and “did he just do/say what I think he did?” He has perfected this throughout his life, Michael Cohen spoke to this on several occasions, we have seen it multiple times over the last four years. Most notably Trumps other “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Trump’s statements were not overtly asking for quid pro quo, “Hey Zelensky, you do this thing for me and I will do this other thing for you”, but any reasonable person reading the transcripts can see what Trumps intent was and what was being proffered. This is the same situation with the call to Raffensperger. Trump used very specific language in trying to skirt just coming right out and saying “Hey, I want you to rig the election for me”, but Raffensperger wouldn’t play along, he was being adamant that no fraud occurred and that Trump was wrong, which in my opinion, frustrated Trump and brought him to the whole “find me 11,780” votes comment. He was trying to spell it out for Raffensperger as plainly as he could, again while trying to stick to that grey area. Having seen Trump over the past four years, having listened to his comments, and read his Tweets, getting a glimpse in to how he operates and how his mind works, I believe it is wholly obvious to any reasonable person what Trump was intimating, what his state of mind was and what his intent was. He reportedly called Raffensperger 18 times in the past couple of months, I don’t think he was looking to swap cookie recipes.

Unfortunately, as Kurth mentioned, our justice system has gotten to the point, or maybe it has always been this way, where it’s not simply about is this person guilty or are they innocent, it’s can you prove I did it and if not, I get away with it. I’ve read the same articles with various lawyers saying a criminal case against Trump for the call would be hard to win, but I haven’t seen many that said it wasn’t actually criminal, just hard to prove. Not the same thing.

I personally do not believe that Trump believes he won the election. Trump knows full well that Biden fairly won. The whole, the election was rigged and I was robbed is another con. Keeping it going publicly has no downside for Trump, it’s garnering him cash, lots and lots of cash, it’s keeping his base riled up, on the outside chance he actually gets one of these state officials to flip votes for him he gets to stay President (he’s flipped a dozen US Senators), he keeps his “I’m always a winner” persona in tacked, and most importantly for a huge number of Americans, it puts an asterisk next to Bidens name. The fact that this could potentially lead to a broken democracy, violence or any other real-world consequence is irrelevant to Trump, none of that directly affects him.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:25 pm**

Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:49 pm But it does mean I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support that position that he's violated a criminal statute in this instance.

I totally get all that (to the degree I'm able) - arguing the nuances over meeting the definition of illegal, determining if he can be charged, determining if the President can be charged, etc...

What about a different question. Based on what you've read in the full transcript, is this an impeachable offense? Not talking about success, but does this conduct rise to the level of impeachment?

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:29 pm**

Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:49 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:30 pm If you honestly believe Trump thought he was doing the right thing in that call and is innocent (sorry..."not guilty") of any attempt to cajole and threaten a secretary of state into overturning an election, then I'm not sure what I can say beyond...Jeebus....
Look, I think we're missing each other here because you are talking about moral and ethical concepts like "doing the right thing" but I'm talking about specific legal concepts like whether the statements made on that January 2 call are sufficient to establish that a criminal statute was violated.

I don't know what's in Trump's mind, but I do think it's possible that he really believes at least some of the crazy stuff he sees on social media and regurgitates. Does that mean he's "innocent" in the colloquial sense? No way. But it does mean I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support that position that he's violated a criminal statute in this instance.

[edit to add: Sorry to Jeebus and to hepcat for the invocation of Jeebus and the eye roll. Don't mean to be antagonistic. Apologies. ]

Thanks, and I should apologize for not just shrugging it off.

Anyway, at the end of the day, neither if us are qualified or knowledgeable enough about this to say with any real authority what's true. We both can find lawyers of note who support our individual views on the matter. So let's agree to disagree and move onto the more important topic of why smoove was kind enough to refer to my previous post about dominion as a joke when it clearly was too stupid for that.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:35 pm**

Tao wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:13 pm One of the things, and there aren’t many, that Trump is very, very good at is finding the small gray area between overtly criminal activity and “did he just do/say what I think he did?” [...]

Well put!

Trump's Ukraine call and his Georgia call are basically the same thing: Trump says "It's within your power to do this thing I want done that would benefit me greatly, and it's beneficial to you that you right this wrong." That there's no evidence whatsoever that the "wrong" occurred at all is ignored. We're expected to give him a pass because he believes (or says he believes) it did.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:39 pm**

The actual power brokers are getting tired of the bullshit show.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 0473441281

WaPo:

Almost 200 of the country’s top business leaders urged Congress in a letter Monday to certify Biden's electoral win, arguing that “attempts to thwart or delay this process run counter to the essential tenets of our democracy.”

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:42 pm**

hepcat wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:29 pmSo let's agree to disagree and move onto the more important topic of why smoove was kind enough to refer to my previous post about dominion as a joke when it clearly was too stupid for that.

FWIW, I also appreciated it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:59 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:25 pmBased on what you've read in the full transcript, is this an impeachable offense? Not talking about success, but does this conduct rise to the level of impeachment?

Literally anything is an impeachable offense if Congress wants it to be. They could impeach a President for wearing the wrong color shoes. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:04 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:25 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:49 pm But it does mean I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support that position that he's violated a criminal statute in this instance.
I totally get all that (to the degree I'm able) - arguing the nuances over meeting the definition of illegal, determining if he can be charged, determining if the President can be charged, etc...

What about a different question. Based on what you've read in the full transcript, is this an impeachable offense? Not talking about success, but does this conduct rise to the level of impeachment?

Yes, 100% yes, it's an impeachable offense. But that's not really saying much is it? I feel like over the past 4 years of Trump's administration, you could throw a rock and hit an impeachable offense. That's because I don't think an impeachment requires criminal conduct. I'm just going to cut and paste from Wikipedia here:

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[3] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons. Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.

If it were put to me and I had a vote, I would have voted to impeach Trump 100 times over by now due to his mal-administration of office and his abuse of the public trust.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:11 pm**

Little Raven wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:59 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:25 pmBased on what you've read in the full transcript, is this an impeachable offense? Not talking about success, but does this conduct rise to the level of impeachment?
Literally anything is an impeachable offense if Congress wants it to be. They could impeach a President for wearing the wrong color shoes suit. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:11 pm**

Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:27 pm
But when we're talking about whether he broke a specific law and whether criminal charges can or should be brought against him, that's a different matter.

I'm curious - legally what does someone have to do to commit election fraud if not ask for someone to come up with the votes they need to win?

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:15 pm**

gbasden wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:11 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:27 pm
But when we're talking about whether he broke a specific law and whether criminal charges can or should be brought against him, that's a different matter.
I'm curious - legally what does someone have to do to commit election fraud if not ask for someone to come up with the votes they need to win?

Apparently they're innocent if they present a conspiracy theory that insists all prior counts were tainted.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:27 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:25 pm is this an impeachable offense? Not talking about success, but does this conduct rise to the level of impeachment?

Bearing in mind that "The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.”"...hell yeah. trump is going to try to pardon himself for the entirety of the past four years. Democrats should have been impeaching him every other Tuesday just to create a basket of unpardonable acts.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:28 pm**

Kraken wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:27 pmBearing in mind that "The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.”"...hell yeah. trump is going to try to pardon himself for the entirety of the past four years. Democrats should have been impeaching him every other Tuesday just to create a basket of unpardonable acts.

I suspect that only applies if the Senate actually votes to impeach. Not that it's ever been tested.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:46 pm**

Little Raven wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:28 pm
Kraken wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:27 pmBearing in mind that "The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.”"...hell yeah. trump is going to try to pardon himself for the entirety of the past four years. Democrats should have been impeaching him every other Tuesday just to create a basket of unpardonable acts.
I suspect that only applies if the Senate actually votes to impeach. Not that it's ever been tested.

I had understood that impeached is impeached whether convicted or not. But we probably won't find out.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:11 pm**

Jaymann wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:06 pm "Recalibrate" sounds more criminal than "find" to me.

Recalculate

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:15 pm**

Alefroth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:11 pm
Jaymann wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:06 pm "Recalibrate" sounds more criminal than "find" to me.
Recalculate

Should have known recalibrate was too literate for Agolf.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:21 pm**

Holman wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:15 pm
gbasden wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:11 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:27 pm
But when we're talking about whether he broke a specific law and whether criminal charges can or should be brought against him, that's a different matter.
I'm curious - legally what does someone have to do to commit election fraud if not ask for someone to come up with the votes they need to win?
Apparently they're innocent if they present a conspiracy theory that insists all prior counts were tainted.

From where I sit it sounds like they're innocent unless you can somehow prove they don't have a legit belief and if that's the case, let me tell you about some legit beliefs I have. To me the proof should be if they don't have a reasonable belief and after 2+ months I've seen not one thing that shows their beliefs are reasonable. It seems to me after 40+ lost cases on election fraud in that time by his legal team that the standard of proof he'd need to produce that his belief is reasonable is about as high as gets.

All he's doing is continuing to torpedo democratic part of our democratic republic and if it's not illegal that's because McConnell has let him slide through four years of autocracy and made him untouchable.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:37 pm**

They're innocent (as in not convictable) unless you can prove that they couldn't have a reasonable belief that [blank] was true. If they had an unreasonable belief, they're either really stupid, they're guilty and lying, or they're insane.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:44 pm**

https://twitter.com/funder/status/13462 ... 17824?s=20

Proud Boys leader arrested in DC.

I've seen various reports, but all include the charge of destruction of private property (BLM material on a black church in their last DC showing). The gun charges referenced here are an interesting wrinkle.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:50 pm**

I can only imagine how much his GoFundMe is going to rake in.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:53 pm**

Holman wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:44 pm Proud Boys leader arrested in DC.

Just ahead of 1/6?

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:57 pm**

Kurth wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:04 pmIf it were put to me and I had a vote, I would have voted to impeach Trump 100 times over by now due to his mal-administration of office and his abuse of the public trust.

Ok, I was trying feel you out a bit. We're absolutely on the same page. I think I am super ultra extra frustrated as all of this continues to reinforce the idea that he's untouchable and above consequence. I think that has been an extremely dangerous precedent that's apparently be tested and confirmed during his Presidency and I fear what it means for the Office of the President moving forward.

This phone call (to me) feel like it plays into that element (that he's untouchable) and it really, really disturbs me. I can't argue the legality of the phone call he made and the things he said / asked for. But this (to me) feels like yet another impeachable offense.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:02 pm**

Cant be impeached when those that vote for his impeachment are up his butt.

Octopus Overlords

Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power

Re: Election integrity and the transfer of power