Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's a silly argument.We have no idea what they would’ve said if Trump actually were an insurrectionist. Since he has not been convicted of being an insurrectionist, and since it really is a pretty anbsurd idea that he is one, they based her decision on that.
Was he? Who said that? LinkBut first, Mike Pence was supposed to declare Trump/Pence the winners based on having two sets of electors from Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico
Because the Republican slate of electors from the states or frauds forgery, lies, the US Constitution could allow Trump to get away with that, but he tried.
Had Mike Pence agreed to commit fraud against the US government on J6, it could have worked by creating chaos in a constitutional crisis. That’s what the mob was there at the Capitol to help create chaos.
Do you really thinks the constitution allows the president night states to commit fraud against the will of the people to be rid of him.
And neither did Trump. He had alternate electors ready in case they were needed. That's been done before.No one ever put forth fake electors
Yes, that was retarded. He was given bad legal advice by Jenna Ellis who then started crying victim.and tried to get the VPOTUS to take away votes unilaterally.
New electors would be needed if and results were overturned.No one ever tried to get state legislatures to appoint new electors after the election.
Democrats bombed the Senate once. Bill Clinton pardoned one and then she became a fundraiser for BLM.No one ever stormed the Capitol before.
No other court has convicted anyone of insurrection, nor was one declared by any of the rioters. The sooner that you accept the fact that J6 was a riot that was fomented by Piglosi and the left, the sooner you'll find peace with yourself.The decision did not say that Trump was exonerated for insurrection though.
Democrats bombed the Senate once. Bill Clinton pardoned one and then she became a fundraiser for BLM.
Yes, Trump did have fake electors. They signed fake elector certificates claiming to be the real electors. Thats not been done before. If you think it has, then let’s hear it.And neither did Trump. He had alternate electors ready in case they were needed. That's been done before
It was John Eastman, and Trump was told it was illegal but he kept on promoting it anyway. Blaming someone else doesn’t work.Yes, that was retarded. He was given bad legal advice by Jenna Ellis who then started crying victim.
Yes, having the state legislature overturn the results after the people voted is unprecedented.New electors would be needed if and results were overturned.
Stay on topic.Democrats bombed the Senate once. Bill Clinton pardoned one and then she became a fundraiser for BLM.
Why? You didn't.Stay on topic.
Have they no shame? Have they no sense of decency?This is never ending. No matter what happens in the near future people better realize who they can trust and not trust. These Progs seem to be setting themselves up for the kill by their own groups in their party.
He already proved that to anyone who paid attention.all the while claiming Trump is the threat to democracy
And every time they pull some of this BS out, they lose a few more of THEIR voters to Trump. No one ever accused the DNC of being smart.Have they no shame? Have they no sense of decency?
They all see that Biden is sinking deeply into dementia, and that the American electorate want Trump instead. So they pull all these banana republic tactics to prevent Americans from being able to elect the president they want - all the while claiming Trump is the threat to democracy,
Today they have moved towards intentions and what might have been as having their definitions changed to “actual outcomes” and charged accordinglyNo other court has convicted anyone of insurrection, nor was one declared by any of the rioters. The sooner that you accept the fact that J6 was a riot that was fomented by Piglosi and the left, the sooner you'll find peace with yourself.
Absolutely. Other than the radical left, Americans don’t like the games the Dems are playing to block voters from choosing the president they want. They will vote AGAINST a government and “ruling” party that pulls this type of thing.And every time they pull some of this BS out, they lose a few more of THEIR voters to Trump. No one ever accused the DNC of being smart.
Oldestyle wrote: Oh, now there is a "written plan" to destroy democracy, NotFooled? You of course have SEEN this plan...right? (eye roll) 21OCT25-POST#316
NFBW wrote: read it yourself: 21OCT25-POST#319
Correll wrote: Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. You saying "disrupt" is you lying. 21OCT16-POST#882
NFBW wrote: It’s laid out in the Eastman Memo: 21OCT16-POST#886
1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots,….
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. [FIRST DISRUPTION >> }This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.
{You don’t think this would be a disruption Correll >>>} Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected there as well
{ EASTMAN tells DJT It’s disruptive>>>}4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
{But PENCE WAS A COWARD AFTER THE DISRUPTION of the riot was over AND STUCK WITH THE PROCESS >>>} 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind. TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt “””
Was he?
Nope. You should actually read the opinion, it's not all that complicated. They said states cannot directly enforce section 3, Congress has to act to provide an enforcement mechanism. Congress did, they passed 18 USC 2383 to provide a federal criminal statute for insurrection.I am not denying the SCOTUS ruling.
The decision did not say that Trump was exonerated for insurrection though.
It only said that individual states cannot kick federal insurrectionists off state ballots.
It was an insurrection.We have no idea what they would’ve said if Trump actually were an insurrectionist. Since he has not been convicted of being an insurrectionist, and since it really is a pretty anbsurd idea that he is one, they based her decision on that.
Raskin has become a bigger asshole than Schiff. I didn't think that was possible.I read that Raskin and Swallow-well are going to try and punish MANY Republicans including Trump.
See above. Biden's DOJ clearly doe not believe it was.It was an insurrection.
The memo didn’t say he had to declare them winners firstThe infamous "Eastman Memo" laid out how the fake electors plot would work: If Pence received an alternate slate of electors from a certain state, he could refrain from including those states' electoral votes in the official count, giving Trump a slight advantage. Following Democrats' objections, Pence would have then sent the matter to the House of Representatives, where each state's delegation would have exactly one vote. Because Republicans controlled slightly more state delegations than Democrats, this would have also resulted in a Trump victory.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
January 6 scenario
7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.
The 12th Amendment merely provides that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch.
The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides:
If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, "acting separately," to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the
"executive" of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures.
." Republicans currently
- Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if
- Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
- When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
- At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" - the language of the 12th Amendment - is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
- Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe's prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th
- Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.
control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote.
President Trump is re-elected there as well.
- either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position - that these are non-justiciable political questions - thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the
- One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one - a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. - should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
- The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission
It was an insurrection.
