Tanks Bakes
>A statement from DNI Dan Coats seems to be generating some apprehension as it can be read as less than fully supportive of AG Barr's efforts
It IS less than fully supportive. Danny boy is pissing and shitting his pants and pleading MUH OPERATIVES. With Barr's declass power he can block NOTHING.
Halfwit. You clearly do not understand the clear statement of power delegated to Barr.
WRONG you stupid fucking MORAN! GTFO with your fucking uneducated unsauced HORSESHIT:
"The power either of Congress116 or of the states to enact legislation binding electors to vote for the candidate of the party on the ticket of which they run has been the subject of much debate.117 It remains unsettled and the Supreme Court has touched on the issue only once and then tangentially. In Ray v. Blair,118 the Court upheld, against a challenge of invalidity under the Twelfth Amendment, a rule of the Democratic Party of Alabama, acting under delegated power of the legislature, that required each candidate for the office of presidential elector to take a pledge to support the nominees of the party’s convention for President and Vice President. The state court had determined that the Twelfth Amendment, following language of Clause 3, required that electors be absolutely free to vote for anyone of their choice. Justice Reed wrote for the Court:
“It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors— contemporaries of the Founders—would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept. History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees. Experts in the history of government recognize the longstanding practice. Indeed, more than twenty states do not print the names of the candidates for electors on the general election ballot. Instead, in one form or another, they allow a vote for the presidential candidate of the national conventions to be counted as a vote for his party’s nominees for the electoral college. This long-continued practical interpretation of the constitutional propriety of an implied or oral pledge of his ballot by a candidate for elector as to his vote in the electoral college weighs heavily in considering the constitutionality of a pledge, such as the one here required, in the primary."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2%E2%80%934/electoral-college
Stupid dick licking fucktard
Top kek and right on target. It's like Trump chose DS mental midgets to defend their flanks.
>They DON'T have the "right" to spread
>
>(((their))) lies and propaganda…DUMB FUCK
Yes they do. However they don't have the right to commit fraud, which appears to be the violation that got them banned from twat.