Patterico's Pontifications

1/13/2022

Trump Allies Sent Fake Slates of Electors to Congress in 2020

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Someone should go to jail:

In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump’s allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College — a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.

The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Oversight.

The documents contain the signatures of Trump supporters who claimed to be the rightful electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won. But these rogue slates of electors didn’t have the backing of any elected officials in the seven states — like a governor or secretary of state, who are involved in certifying election results — and they served no legitimate purpose.

Here’s one of the clowns who did this giving his “justification” for his actions. (He claims to have been an elector but was not.)

Apparently the documents have been public for months, but the media is just now figuring out they exist thanks to the January 6 committee.

We already knew this was an attempted coup. This is just more proof.

54 Responses to “Trump Allies Sent Fake Slates of Electors to Congress in 2020”

  1. This should be a serious felony.

    (I wish that we did not need to indicate some felonies are not “serious”)

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  2. Hamilton Electors 2016 from Vox.
    Not trying to be a whataboutismer but what you are noting is the 2020 point on the Bush/Gore continuum

    Hamilton Electors 2016 from Vox.

    So this seems to many like a transparent attempt for the losing side to change the universally understood rules of the game after they have lost (which, again, is terrible for democracy). While it’s true that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, everyone understood in advance that the popular vote was meaningless, and structured their campaign strategies with that understanding.

    If we’re being real, this is essentially an attempt to steal an election that Trump fairly won — something that liberals would obviously be infuriated about if it were done to Clinton.

    steveg (e81d76)

  3. This should be a serious felony.

    It is. More than one. But they’ll all end up with a No Bill or a hung jury. I recommend the formation of a Civic Vigilance Committee.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. It’s quite different to badger the official electors to change their vote for some “important” reason. This here was fraudulently claiming to be electors.

    An analogy: On the one hand trying to talk a cop out of giving you a ticket, on the other hand pretending to be a cop.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. Civic Vigilance Committee

    Well, that IS “pretending to be a cop” (also judge, jury and executioner), so I must decline. A thorough doxxing might be useful though.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  6. I briefly mentioned this in another thread, but the AZ and MI groups committed electoral fraud by signing forged certificates of ascertainment after picking electors in a non-legislative setting. The AZ case is especially serious because it was done under state seal, and should be criminally prosecuted, IMO.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  7. OT: This is stupid.

    The Republican National Committee says it will require candidates to pledge to not participate in debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    The Republican National Committee is preparing to change its rules to require presidential candidates seeking the party’s nomination to sign a pledge to not participate in any debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    Republican committee officials alerted the debate commission to their plans in a letter sent on Thursday, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. If the change goes forward, it would be one of the most substantial shifts in how presidential and vice-presidential debates have been conducted since the commission began organizing debates more than 30 years ago.

    The nonprofit commission, founded by the two parties in 1987 to codify the debates as a permanent part of presidential elections, describes itself as nonpartisan. But Republicans have complained for nearly a decade that its processes favor the Democrats, mirroring increasing rancor from conservatives toward Washington-based institutions.

    I guess that Trump was upset about those pesky rules that allowed Biden to interrupt when it was Biden’s turn to talk.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. If only

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. Yup, Trump and his supporters in the GOP tried to steal the election and everyone directly involved in this should be prosecuted.
    We rightly prosecute ppl who vote unlawfully even when it will have no impact on the outcome. This shouldn’t be treated differently

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  10. I wonder how many of the people who’ve been focal about need to balance access and integrity towards integrity are going to be at all concerned about this?

    My guess is “almost completely unconcerned”

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  11. Kevin M, at 7: it will be widely cheered by the republican grassroots, who believe the commission on presidential debates is inherently biased in favor of democrats.

    our ability to function as a polity continues to deteriorate.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  12. This should be a serious felony.

    Sounds like they attended at the Donald Segretti School for Scoundrels.

    OTOH- they didn’t shoot anybody. No doubt the “January 6 committee” will grill, filet and season the killer of Ashli Babbitt and serve ’em up on a very public plate.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  13. This is the problem with Trump stubbornly sticking with the “Big Lie” and the GOP faithful not repudiating him, it encourages this nonsense…which in turn will encourage nonsense from the other side. Everyone acting as if it is somehow justified….or rationalizing that the other side will inevitably do it….kind of like how many discussions go about nuking the filibuster. People will flaunt the law because the other side is evil. When will our Trump supporters acknowledge where they are leading the GOP? It won’t be quite as entertaining when political instability starts to show up as economic instability……grow up……demand better and more ethical representatives

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  14. I recommend the formation of a Civic Vigilance Committee.

    nk (1d9030) — 1/13/2022 @ 9:43 am

    In other words you recommend someone else do this? Why don’t you get about this business yourself?

    frosty (f27e97)

  15. AJ, one of the annoying things about MAGA is the habit of taking things that didn’t really happen, or happened to a small amount, fabricating or exaggerating the event, and using that as justification for bad acts on their part.

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  16. @12 aphrael, are the democrats going to boycott debates on fox again?

    the commission was behind the steve scully nonsense and bought his “i was hacked” blatant lie

    JF (e1156d)

  17. This feels like performance art that was not taken seriously by anyone. People who are not registered and are turned away at the door don’t get arested.

    That’s not Book Em Danno level stuff, IMHO. There was no danger that someone would mistake them for the real electors.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  18. @18, appalled we regularly prosecute ppl who violate voting laws with no I’ll intent and no impact on the outcome. Check out the link I posted. A woman on supervised release cast a provisional ballot and is being prosecuted for it. She didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to vote abd her vote was never counted.

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  19. AJ, one of the annoying things about MAGA is the habit of taking things that didn’t really happen, or happened to a small amount, fabricating or exaggerating the event, and using that as justification for bad acts on their part.

    Time123 (33cdfa) — 1/13/2022 @ 10:57 am

    If we’re making lists of annoying things; one of the annoying things about the left is the habit of denying that something is happening, or claiming that it’s not significant or happening to any degree, or simply lying about it, and then claiming that there is nothing to discuss. But this seems like it’s getting off-topic.

    frosty (f27e97)

  20. The RNC complaints:

    -Waiting until after early voting had already begun to host the first presidential debate;
    -Making unilateral changes to previously agreed-upon debate formats and conditions, in some cases without even notifying the candidates;
    -Selecting a moderator who had once worked for the Democrat nominee, a glaring conflict of interest; and
    -Failing to maintain the organization’s strict nonpartisanship, with a majority of its Board Members publicly disparaging the Republican nominee.

    The RNC requests:

    -Adopt term limits for its Board of Directors, several members of which have served for more than a decade;
    -Commit to holding at least one debate before the start of early voting, and in no case after the deadline for states to mail absentee ballots to uniformed and overseas voters;
    -Enact a code of conduct prohibiting CPD officers, directors, and staff from making public comments supporting or opposing any candidate, or otherwise engaging in partisan political activity in connection with the presidential election, with meaningful consequences for violations;
    -Establish transparent criteria for selecting debate moderators that would disqualify individuals from consideration who have apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors; and
    -Enact a transparent code of conduct for moderators in conducting debates, including guidelines for appropriate interactions with the participating nominees, with meaningful penalties for violations

    Clearly this is about Biden interrupting Trump… 🧐

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  21. If we’re making lists of annoying things; one of the annoying things about the left is the habit of denying that something is happening, or claiming that it’s not significant or happening to any degree, or simply lying about it, and then claiming that there is nothing to discuss. But this seems like it’s getting off-topic.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/13/2022 @ 11:24 am

    I still have faith that AJ will come up with a statement that backs up his emphatic claim about the FBI.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  22. @4 Kevin, you mean it’s not generally smiled upon to show up to court for your traffic ticket with your friend who claims to be the real police officer with forged documents supporting his police status in hopes that the judge throws out normal rules? But like, what if there were extreme circumstances like, you really believe that the officer was wrong or lying?

    nate (1f1d55)

  23. This should be a serious felony.

    Ironically enough, of course, Democrats would insist that as soon as this guy does his prison sentence that his voting rights will be immediately restored. In fact, if many of them had their way this guy would be able to vote from prison. Of course their zeal for restoring voting rights might wane a bit when faced with this particular clown.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  24. #19 —

    How is this different from Trump claiming he is really the President or Stacey Abrams claiming she is really the Governor or the Lincoln Project Tikki Torch gang claing they are Northram supporters? This is just people playing their parts in a silly little show — rather than a genuine attempt at deceiving anyone.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  25. Appalled, my understanding is that they submitted the forged document *as* an official document. There was a postal carrier in (I think) West Virginia who swapped some of his friends party registration forms as a joke. He was prosecuted.

    If you google “election fraud conviction” for a state you’ll get a list of isolated incidents that don’t add up to much. Many of them are for silly reasons; man votes on behalf of a dead mom because it’s what she would have wanted. Daughter votes for her dad because she’s mad, silly petty reasons. Some are errors similar to the one I linked already. A few are legitimate attempts to vote twice. None of them would impact the outcome. But they all got prosecuted.

    I think we should be strict about things like this. If circumstances show the just outcome is a light punishment (probation and a fine) make that decision at sentencing.

    The fact that this effort at fraud didn’t work doesn’t make it any less of an attempted fraud. It doesn’t appear to me to even have been performative, just badly executed.

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  26. JVW, are you ok with this? Or does you opinion start and stop at “I don’t like the democrats”

    Personally I think voting rights should be restored after the debt to society has been paid. But I understand reasonable ppl can disagree.

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  27. Apology to everyone for the typos. I’m using phone and doing a worse then normal job of typing with my thumbs.

    Time123 (33cdfa)

  28. JVW, are you ok with this? Or does you opinion start and stop at “I don’t like the democrats”

    I’m not sure I understand why you are phrasing your question this way. If there are progressives who strongly advocate that this guy have his voting rights restored then good on them, at least they are being consistent. I’m just guessing that a large number of Democrats are quite insincere on this issue. If there are conservatives who don’t believe that a felon’s voting rights should ever be restored, even if they are GOP allies, then good on them. Those would oppose it but would carve out exemptions like this are also guilty of being insincere.

    You say that “voting rights should be restored after the debt to society has been paid,” but do you simply mean once they have been paroled from incarceration, or do you also include successfully completing the assigned probationary period? If the sentence included the felon providing financial restitution to the victim and/or the court, should the return of voting rights be withheld until full renumeration has been made? What would you do if a felon has his or her sentence cynically commuted by a governor or President? What about if the felon was convicted on voting or election fraud rules — would it make sense to permanently revoke voting rights for that class of criminal? And finally, if you can no longer ban someone permanently from voting, does that undercut the idea that you can ban them from holding public office or from working as a lobbyist or political organizer?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  29. > If there are progressives who strongly advocate that this guy have his voting rights restored then good on them, at least they are being consistent.

    of course his voting rights should be restored once he’s been released from prison. I don’t think anyone I know who generally supports the automatic restoration of voting rights on prison release would disagree with this sentiment at all.

    > If the sentence included the felon providing financial restitution to the victim and/or the court, should the return of voting rights be withheld until full renumeration has been made?

    absolutely not; the right to vote should not be contingent on financial resources.

    > What would you do if a felon has his or her sentence cynically commuted by a governor or President?

    his voting rights should be restored. we should not abandon the general principle simply because it generates an unpleasant outcome in an individual case.

    > What about if the felon was convicted on voting or election fraud rules — would it make sense to permanently revoke voting rights for that class of criminal?

    no, but i’d support a permanent bar on working elections in any sort of official capacity.

    > And finally, if you can no longer ban someone permanently from voting, does that undercut the idea that you can ban them from holding public office or from working as a lobbyist or political organizer?

    no, why would it?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  30. then-President Donald Trump’s allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost.

    They weren’t fake – that is had no forged signatures – they were invalid. At least that is what I would assume. We didn’t hear about this before precisely because they were no form of forgery.

    They were nullities which they hoped would be upheld by Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  31. JVW: And finally, if you can no longer ban someone permanently from voting, does that undercut the idea that you can ban them from holding public office or from working as a lobbyist or political organizer?

    aphrael: no, why would it?

    Explain the logic of “this citizen is allowed to vote, but not allowed to hold public office.” Granted, you can vote at age 18 but can’t be a Senator until 30 or President until 35. But it seems to me that it’s like declaring that someone who is jailed for felony libel and released is allowed to write whatever they want under the First Amendment, but can’t own or manage a newspaper or blog. Are there jurisdiction in this country you know of which have these sort of laws in place, or would you make an argument in favor of them?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  32. The Republican National Committee is preparing to change its rules to require presidential candidates seeking the party’s nomination to sign a pledge to not participate in any debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    This could really help a third party candidate,

    Or if Biden debates someone, like Reagan debated Anderson in 1980, will the RNC hold a meeting and clear their nominee to participate?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  33. @33 i think aphrael is on record on this blog as advocating that non citizens should have the right to vote, just so we understand where he fits on the voting rights spectrum

    but, he can correct me if i’m mistaken

    JF (e1156d)

  34. 35. JVW (ee64e4) — 1/13/2022 @ 12:33 pm

    Are there jurisdiction in this country you know of which have these sort of laws in place, or would you make an argument in favor of them?

    https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/publicOfficeConsequences.shtml

    Yes there is.

    Public Office Consequences

    If you have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor you may be barred from public office jobs, like a police officer, firefighter, court officer, or notary public. Public offices also include elected and appointed offices, like governor, judge, legislator, and local supervisors and commissioners. Police officers, corrections officers, parole and probation officers and district attorneys are also public offices. But, public office doesn’t always mean a job working for the city or state. If you think you may want a public office job, or you hold one now, it is important to find out if your misdemeanor or felony conviction will prevent you from having the job. Visit Collateral Consequences Basics and use a calculator to learn more.

    You can get a Certificate of Good Conduct so that you can apply for public office. But, there are some public offices that a Certificate of Good Conduct won’t help with. A Certificate of Relief from Disabilities will never help with public office.

    Boldface mine.

    The disqualifications for voting are not the same:

    https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/Criminal/votingConsequences.shtml

    Voting

    You lose your right to vote while you are in prison or on parole for a felony conviction. If you are convicted of a felony and you are released from prison and are no longer on parole, you can vote. If you are convicted of a felony and your sentence is suspended, you can vote. If you are convicted of a felony and there was no prison sentence, you can vote. Your right to vote is automatically returned to you once you are out of state prison. Visit the New York State Board of Elections website to register, or re-register to vote.

    Certificate of Relief from Disabilities.

    All other criminal convictions do not take away your right to vote. So, misdemeanor and violation convictions do not prevent you from voting even if you are serving time in jail.

    Starting September 1, 2021, before being released from prison, you will be notified verbally and in writing by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) that your voting rights will be returned once you are released. You will also receive a form of application for voter registration and declination form, help filling out the form, and written information on voting. You can submit your forms to the state or county board where you live or have the DOCCS submit it for you. Correction Law § 75

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  35. This seems to contradict itself, unless no one convicted of a felony is ever released on parole.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  36. Sammy, the difference in preventing convicted felons from being hired by public agencies and preventing them from being elected by the citizens of their jurisdiction seems pretty clear to me, though. In the former you have a small group of people making that hiring decision, and the public has every right to determine that past behavior is a disqualification for holding a taxpayer-paid job. (Quick digression: it does strike me as odd that those qualification rules would be in effect in municipalities and states which prohibit private companies from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal record or prohibiting background checks, though.) However, in the case of elected positions, if the voters of a jurisdiction want to elect (i.e. “hire”) someone who has a past record, why should they be prohibited from doing so?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  37. @33 i think aphrael is on record on this blog as advocating that non citizens should have the right to vote, just so we understand where he fits on the voting rights spectrum

    To be fair, and I’m going by memory, I believe that aphrael would limit the enfranchisement of non-citizens to municipal and county elections, as was proposed and enacted recently in New York City. This brings with it a new set of problems, but it’s different from arguing that they should vote in state or federal elections.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  38. -Waiting until after early voting had already begun to host the first presidential debate;

    A good objection. It probably hurts the candidate trying to change public opinion. The commission simply was lazy in not taking account of that – but early voting has gotten pretty early, especially for absentee ballots.

    -Making unilateral changes to previously agreed-upon debate formats and conditions, in some cases without even notifying the candidates;

    There can be reasons for that, including disease and illness, and candidates can of course pull put. Nobody is taking oublic funds so there;s nothing to pull over their head.

    -Selecting a moderator who had once worked for the Democrat nominee, a glaring conflict of interest; and

    Avoiding that would not avoid all possible partisanship.

    -Failing to maintain the organization’s strict nonpartisanship, with a majority of its Board Members publicly disparaging the Republican nominee.

    There can be a reason for that, but of course this goes as to the neutrality of the commission.

    The only thing they can do is either agree in advance how the commission is picked or use an element of lottery, or maybe a prolonged Venician type process.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  39. A lot of these rules are historical, but I think private companies are allowed to avoid hiring people with criminal convictions if deemed relevant.

    JVW (ee64e4) — 1/13/2022 @ 12:57 pm

    However, in the case of elected positions, if the voters of a jurisdiction want to elect (i.e. “hire”) someone who has a past record, why should they be prohibited from doing so?

    I think the argument is that an elected official is most often convicted of corruption and they want to deter it.

    Certain crimes go into fashion for a crackdown (bribery, sex offenders) and certain other crimes fall ot of fashion (robbery, even armed robbery, shoplifting and newly installed Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg doesn’t even want to send murderrs to prison for more than 20 years.)

    Incidentally, the new law, effective January 9, 2023 (and so for the city council elections that year) does not apply to District attorneys and judges, which are state offices.

    They will probably have to produce separate ballots for city offices and everything else (propositions, judges) and it would be better to have a distinct way of registering as a non-citizen , but someone with a Social Security number.

    It keeps on persistently being said that the new law allows illegal aliens to vote. It does not, but too many people who listen to right wing media seem to think that in the United States there are only citizens and illegal immigrants

    As at least Ann Coulter noticed (although she made that stupid or ignorant error about people not legally present on the United States being allowed to vote in New York City elections) this could backfire against progressives with a pro-crime agenda.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  40. Jurisdictions that prohibit private companies from asking about criminal records, I think, only prohibit all purpose questions.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  41. >Explain the logic of “this citizen is allowed to vote, but not allowed to hold public office.”

    This citizens behavior has shown that allowing them to hold public office represents a threat to the country because of the way they have abused the power of public offices in the past and/or because of the way their behavior creates a reasonable presumption that they would be highly likely to abuse the power of public office in the future, but that in now way justifies denying them the fundamental right to vote. *Even if the were somehow to abuse that right*, the danger to the country involved in them abusing the that right in no way compares with the danger to the country involved in them abusing the power of public office.

    This isn’t even hard.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  42. > To be fair, and I’m going by memory, I believe that aphrael would limit the enfranchisement of non-citizens to municipal and county elections, as was proposed and enacted recently in New York City. This brings with it a new set of problems, but it’s different from arguing that they should vote in state or federal elections.

    That is correct. I voted *against* the measure to allow non-citizens to vote in SF school board elections because I thought the implementation was impractical and insufficient to prevent such persons from accidentally voting in state or federal elections. I think it’s probably helpful to allow long-term non-citizen residents of a city voting on *city* matters, particularly cities with enormous non-citizen populations, but that’s not the same as letting them vote on state and federal matters.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  43. @45 i’m interested in your rationale for allowing non citizens to vote in local elections but not federal or state elections

    why draw the line anywhere?

    JF (e1156d)

  44. Local elections generally boil down to discussions of zoning, city planning, how much money to spend on street maintenance, whether or not to give the guy down the road a variance to build his house higher than the rules allow, how to handle sourcing of water, etc. bread and butter quality of life issues that directly effect everyone living in the community.

    state and federal elections are *more* about high level decisions about what rules should bind *us* as a collective, and federal elections involve *policy towards other countries*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  45. @47 ok, that’s fair

    of course, i disagree, but thanks for answering

    JF (e1156d)

  46. “I recommend the formation of a Civic Vigilance Committee.”

    These made for better TV:
    Dignity Battallions

    “In an image caught on video and played out in news sources around the world, they attacked [Presidential candidate] Billy Ford’s car. Ford’s bodyguards were shot and killed. Billy Ford attempted to flee as one member of the Dignity Battalions pummeled him repeatedly with a metal pipe. The image of Ford running to safety with his guayabera coated in blood, displayed on the cover of the May 22, 1989, Time magazine,[9] brought worldwide attention to Noriega’s regime. The other two presidential candidates were also severely beaten.

    Dignity Battalions often had patriotic names such as the “Christopher Columbus Battalion”, the “Saint Michael the Archangel Battalion” and the “Latin Liberation Battalion”.

    Coming to a TV near you in 2028?

    steveg (e81d76)

  47. In other words you recommend someone else do this? Why don’t you get about this business yourself?

    I am in fact good with knots, you should see me clew a jib; but in the first place I don’t live in Arizona and I don’t care all that much if they never get a valid slate of Electors counted, that’s their problem, we’ve elected 27 Presidents without them; and in the second place, British hangmen discovered a long time ago that a simple loop, like the honda on a cowboy’s lariat, works better than the iconic hangman’s knot, so they wouldn’t really need me.

    nk (1d9030)

  48. Local elections generally boil down to discussions of zoning, city planning, how much money to spend on street maintenance, whether or not to give the guy down the road a variance to build his house higher than the rules allow, how to handle sourcing of water, etc. bread and butter quality of life issues that directly effect everyone living in the community.

    Lately it’s been more about ‘sanctuary cities’.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  49. @51 Excellent point, DCSCA. I like reading your comments that depart from the dead horses.

    norcal (e37642)

  50. 47. You left out crime and education.

    Some non-citizens (parents of children in public schools, called parent voters) were allowed to vote in commuunity school board elections, when we had them.

    But those elections were conducted in separate days, with a different method of voting (paper ballots where you voted in order of preference, There was a list of names and you could pt numbers from 1 through 9 in the small box to the left of their names. At that time the list of voters allowed to vote in that election was printed in bound books for every election.

    The elections, and the school boards (for schools below high school) were abandoned because, basically, the teacher’s union or other insiders controlled the outcome. There was no campaigning.

    If you want limited spending on elections, you had it there. There was no turnout and complete ignorance about the candidates (except for whatever clues you might get from the material sent to you by the Board of Elections)

    You never found out who won.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  51. JVW, I used “debt to society” on purpose. I think there’s a range of reasonable definitions of that.

    My preference would apply to felony only, sentence served, restitution and fines paid. But if someone said they wanted to add fees, or allow fines on payment plan, or such, it wouldn’t seem unjust to me. If someone wanted to permanently revoke franchise for a conviction I’d think that was excessive, but not an outrage.

    Time123 (9f42ee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2064 secs.