what s your reaction? on january 6th committee, we argued he was an officer, an election official whose job was to uphold the laws he was elected to represent. we re seeing officer, legal interpretation. the best argument would be he was not involved with trying to prevent the transfer of power. instead we re seeing procedural arguments. i do find it interesting that the first arguments that are being presented relate to process, procedure, bias. but not the actual facts, that he had nothing to do with insurrection and preventing the lawful transfer of power. it s on tape what he was saying publicly at the time. carrie, any legal basis to say trump never took, quote, an oath to support the constitution? well, so this gets into sort of the arcane constitutional interpretation and whether the president s oath is similar or a little bit different or different in some way from other officers under the constitution. the president does take an oath.
US News: The worry is about the 2024 election, where former President Donald Trump is running again and has been dominating the Republican primary. Trump's rhe
City hiring poll officials - Rio Rancho Observer rrobserver.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from rrobserver.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
According to Fremont County Clerk and Recorder Justin Grantham, the 2023 election results are on the verge of being certified. “We just got word that we can certify results tomorrow,” Grantham said during a Monday afternoon conversation with the Daily Record. “All the audits were passed [with] no discrepancies, no need for a round two, […]