The latest indictment against #Trump is critically factually wrong right off the hop, on the very second claim in the introduction,.
It claims that "Despite having lost [..] for more than two months following election day on November 3" when the US process of presidential election doesn't choose its winner on that day.
The indictment seems largely built on that factually incorrect foundation, that's at odds with some pretty major elements of the US system for election presidents.
Not that facts matter these days... sigh
You're missing that those two months occurred BEFORE the legal process to count the EC votes.
It was a general range of time before the election, not following the election, that he supposedly lost, before it occurred.
You're missing the big issue with this accusation, that the guy supposedly refuted an election that hadn't happened yet, by the indictment's own admission if not general knowledge about how the process works in the US, by law.
@volkris that is literally not what you posted. Or what the indictment says. Well done.
@volkris Election Day is election day, no matter when the results are finalized. First Tuesday after first Monday since 1845
https://www.history.com/news/why-is-election-day-a-tuesday-in-november
But that's election of electors, not election of the president, entirely different thing.
By law election of the president happens later on, and that is what this indictment both recognizes and misses, and the contradiction within the indictment is so key to why it is a sham.
@volkris saying ‘more than two months’ is a way of indicating a general range of time. It’s entirely irrelevant to the case or the charges. Unless of course Trump didn’t say the election was fraudulent within in the 2+ months following the election. Which he did, publicly and repeatedly.