Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,443
- 81,783
- 2,635
Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven.I do have a question about the Eastman memo, and the whole plan to send back the electors
This is JUST a question, because I don't know know the legality and what the constitution says about it.
Was there an actual crime? I mean, sure, it would have been a crappy thing to do, so was the national popular vote compact, but what crime was actually committed? I mean, pence never went through with it, so they crime was never actualized. What you have left would be conspiracy to commit a crime, but, in order to get that, wouldn't it require that the people conspiring to know what they were doing was illegal?
If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what pence could do in regards to only those states.
The memo outlines a plan based on their thought that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election.
Also, the Eastman memo does say that they would send those elections back to the States, for 7 to 10 days, so the states could look in to the errors, and IF they found the errors to be true, THEN they could send the other slate of electors.
So, if they really believed to election to be stolen and that the constitution gave pence the ability to reject electors based on that thought, then would you still be able to prove a crime, or a conspiracy to commit a crime?
Again, just asking. Someone with a legal background can answer this I'm sure.
So had Pence done that, we'd have the losers (Trump and Pence) of the election unconstitutionally stealing the office of the president. Sounds like treason to me.