Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

I dunno, maybe it's your google fu that's at issue. But I think that it's because he has no credentials that you don't think enough of credentials, even credentials by your own words, you've accepted.


Idunno. As I've said a few times now, I don't have any problems finding evidence of top conservative lawyers on the internet. They tend to leave a footprint. Not much information out there on Eastman before Rudy proclaimed him "preeminent".

So only those that have a “footprint“ on the web can be preeminent? Did not know that…

 

[jamil]

The numbers you cite are only obtainable by acknowledging credentials given by media, the bar association, honorary degrees. What do all these have in common? They are all leftist controlled institutions. So what is happening here is you are setting up a scene where only those the left approves are qualified to have an opinion on constitutional law. That is credentialism…

Ah. I see the problem. You don't know what the **** credentialism is. You said yourself that you'd rather go by what they actually do than what degrees they have and from where. No one is talking about that. It's where he worked. There's no evidence I can find on the internet that he is any kind of preeminent scholar, or authoritative on the subject of constitutional law regarding electors and such.

But that means Trump's attempt was either delusional or corrupt.

 

[Ingomike]

It's not about what the VP "should" do. It's about what's within his/her explicit Constitutional authority or lack thereof "to" do.

It explicitly states that the VP is to protect the constitution. Is accepting unconstitutional electors protecting the constitution?

 

[KG1]

Given that Pence believed he was being asked to do what he believed he did not have the authority to do, he had a duty and moral obligation to refuse.

IM's point is that he has the duty and the moral obligation to uphold his oath which gives him the authority. I'm not gonna say that his argument is necessarily invalid and dismiss it outright.

 

[jamil]

So only those that have a “footprint“ on the web can be preeminent? Did not know that…

I asked you the other day what credentials you would accept as not elitist. You said indicated things related more to accomplishments within the field. I don't recall your exact words, so I want to head you off from saying you didn't say those exact words. It's a paraphrase.

People with a well respected scholarship in a particular field has credentials that indicate such. A footprint, if you will. And, in case you did not notice, yes, those things can be found on the internet, because everything is.

 

[jamil]

It explicitly states that the VP is to protect the constitution. Is accepting unconstitutional electors protecting the constitution?

It's your opinion that it was constitutional. The things done in the election were done under the cover of emergency orders. So you first get a ruling that emergency orders do not apply to the way elections are conducted and then you can complain about it being unconstitutional.

 

[jamil]

IM says that he has the duty and the moral obligation to uphold his oath which gives him the authority. I'm not gonna say that his argument is necessarily invalid and dismiss it outright.

It hinges on what Pence believed was constitutional or not. He could be wrong, sure. It could be unconstitutional. But Mike making that determination is every bit as much an opinion as mine. Before he gets to proclaim as if fact, that Trump's electors were legal and the ones certified are not, needs to be adjudicated.

This is how rule of law works. There's a legitimate counterargument that's been offered by SD4L that is every bit as plausible as his. That's why we should not go by opinions on the internet. Everyone on the internet has one.

 

[KG1]

It hinges on what Pence believed was constitutional or not. He could be wrong, sure. It could be unconstitutional. But Mike making that determination is every bit as much an opinion as mine. Before he gets to proclaim as if fact, that Trump's electors were legal and the ones certified are not, needs to be adjudicated.

This is how rule of law works. There's a legitimate counterargument that's been offered by SD4L that is every bit as plausible as his. That's why we should not go by opinions on the internet. Everyone on the internet has one.

I guess it's a question of Pence thinking or not that he had the unilateral authority to act is what you're saying. He did not believe that he did.

If what Trump's frame of mind is in believing what he did is an argument, then why can't Pence's belief be equally one as well?

 

[Ingomike]

It's your opinion that it was constitutional. The things done in the election were done under the cover of emergency orders. So you first get a ruling that emergency orders do not apply to the way elections are conducted and then you can complain about it being unconstitutional.

It is not opinion that several states changed the manner electors are chosen without the legislature directing it. You have admitted they did...

 

[Ingomike]

Before he gets to proclaim as if fact, that Trump's electors were legal and the ones certified are not, needs to be adjudicated.

I will never proclaim that ”Trumps electors” were legal. They too were unconstitutional unless they were sent by the legislature.

 

[Ingomike]

I guess it's a question of Pence thinking or not that he had the unilateral authority is what you're saying. He did not believe that he did.

I agree with this, but still think Pence is a part of the establishment and that he was feathering his nest by not fighting for the win.

If what Trump's frame of mind is in believing what he did is an argument, then why can't Pence's belief be equally one as well?

Pence was always a follower…

 

[jamil]

I guess it's a question of Pence thinking or not that he had the unilateral authority to act is what you're saying. He did not believe that he did.

If what Trump's frame of mind is in believing what he did is an argument, then why can't Pence's belief be equally one as well?

That's kinda my thought process. Both of those statements can be flipped around. I don't think what Trump did is a crime. I don't think what Pence did was wrong. Both stem from frame of mind. If you won't apply that to one, then you can't to the other.

 

[KLB]

It is not opinion that several states changed the manner electors are chosen without the legislature directing it. You have admitted they did...

This isn't true. The electors were assigned to the candidate that had the most recorded votes, as they were supposed to be. You just don't like the methods used to determine those counts.

 

[KG1]

This isn't true. The electors were assigned to the candidate that had the most recorded votes, as they were supposed to be. You just don't like the methods used to determine those counts.

IM's argument seems to be that Biden's vote count was invalid based on unconstitutional measures therefore the elector assignment was invalid.

 

[KLB]

IM's argument seems to be that Biden's vote count was invalid based on unconstitutional measures though.

I know his argument. We've been round and round this subject. Nobody gets to unilaterally decide that.

Of course anyone that disagrees just doesn't believe in the Constitution.

Every State certified their electors according to their laws. Those States had to challenge the validity of the results before that.

 

[KG1]

I know his argument. We've been round and round this subject. Nobody gets to unilaterally decide that.

Of course anyone that disagrees just doesn't believe in the Constitution.

Every State certified their electors according to their laws. Those States had to challenge the validity of the results before that.

Well at least we got him to agree that "Trump's Elector" slates that he and his legal advisors cooked up were'nt legal and constitutional because they were not official certified slates that were sent by the legislatures.

 

[KG1]

A big part of Pence's argument and rightly so was that only official State certified elector slates submitted to Congress could be counted.

 

[Ingomike]

This isn't true. The electors were assigned to the candidate that had the most recorded votes, as they were supposed to be. You just don't like the methods used to determine those counts.

The not true is your BS. I’ll repeat it for those that are to challenged to get it. Only one entity directs the manner electors are selected for the EC, the legislature is explicitly named, no other entity. Please show me the passage in the constitution allowing the governor, the SOS, or even courts to direct the manner electors are chosen?

You short sighted people citing this stuff and “emergency orders” are also hurting the second because the same logic can be used to bypass the second, because after all it is an emergency…

 

[Ingomike]

Every State certified their electors according to their laws. Those States had to challenge the validity of the results before that.

No they did not. That is the point making them unconstitutional…

 

[KLB]

No they did not. That is the point making them unconstitutional…

You really live in your own reality.

Most votes gets the electors. How did that not happen? The final tallies are out there for you to see. You just don't like the numbers or how they got to them. You are conflating two different things.