Thank you for that, sincerely. Not to be headstrong—you are technically correct, I had parsed it wrong and my correction is coming forthwith—but contracting “who has” is clumsy in this case.

This just in – The Detroit News: “Pro-Trump lawyer’s Michigan trial planned ahead of November election”

The Michigan criminal trial of Stefanie Lambert, a lawyer who’s advanced dubious claims of voter fraud across an array of battleground states, will take place in the months ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election, a judge indicated Thursday.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jeffery Matis said he’s planning for Lambert’s trial to begin at 8:30 a.m. July 15. She’s facing four felony charges over allegations that she conspired to improperly access tabulators that were used in Michigan’s 2020 election.

Lambert’s upcoming trial, which could feature a handful of prominent witnesses, could shine new light on the efforts of Trump supporters to challenge his loss in the 2020 election as Trump seeks another term in the White House.

Alt link, for your convenience, via archive.today

How can you vote against something that has already been getting enacted for the last few presidential terms.

Please explain. What exactly has been enacted? A rightwing authoritarian state?

This shift started with Bill Clinton, it’s just until recently it got a name.

What? Again, please explain. What “shift” started with Clinton? What is this name of which you speak?

And what have Democrats offered to counter this with? Nothing.

It’s true. The Dems haven’t promised to essentially burn the Constitution with a spoiled rich-kid alleged con man to treat the country as his personal playground.

They have just as much to benefit from P2025 as Republicans.

Ok, I’ll bite. Such as…?

But Republicans are honest in their intent.

Especially in these recent times, I’d say Republicans can’t even spell “honest” in a game of hangman with five of the six letters exposed. And, really, since when has dictatorship ever been part of the GOP plan until 2016?