Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

Or would be limited. So Joe Biden loses the election to Trump, now a felon. Right away Kamala files to question the constitutionality of the law because it prevents her from choosing a slate of electors who will vote for Biden over the ones duly certified who would have voted for the other guy. The court hears the case and ultimately finds for the plaintiff, not because the law was actually unconstitutional, but because 5 justices, the four ideologues want the democrats to be in power, plus Roberts, who ruled for the plaintiff because he thought that a felon POTUS would be icky.

What a ****ed up world that this does not even seem far fetched…

 

[Ingomike]

Or would be limited. So Joe Biden loses the election to Trump, now a felon. Right away Kamala files to question the constitutionality of the law because it prevents her from choosing a slate of electors who will vote for Biden over the ones duly certified who would have voted for the other guy. The court hears the case and ultimately finds for the plaintiff, not because the law was actually unconstitutional, but because 5 justices, the four ideologues want the democrats to be in power, plus Roberts, who ruled for the plaintiff because he thought that a felon POTUS would be icky.

That anyone believes that Pence could just unilaterally make himself and Trump the winners is farcical. That such actions could trigger the constitutional contingencies for not having 270 EC votes seems more likely…

 

[jamil]

That anyone believes that Pence could just unilaterally make himself and Trump the winners is farcical. That such actions could trigger the constitutional contingencies for not having 270 EC votes seems more likely…

Is that practically any different? If the VPOTUS has that constitutional authority, I don’t see why every incumbent party that loses a close election wouldn’t just have their own electors send their ballots to the VPOTUS, and have him/her/zer/they count theirs instead of those certified by the states.

 

[jamil]

I think you’re desperately searching deep in the constitution’s presumed penumbrae to find how the VPOTUS has any authority to do this. It certainly isn’t in any clearly worded language.

 

[Ingomike]

Is that practically any different? If the VPOTUS has that constitutional authority, I don’t see why every incumbent party that loses a close election wouldn’t just have their own electors send their ballots to the VPOTUS, and have him/her/zer/they count theirs instead of those certified by the states.

My understanding of the constitution starts with swearing to support and defend the constitution. Accepting slates of electors that are known to be unconstitutionally determined is a violation of that oath.

“In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, entered into a consent agreement with Stacey Abrams -- a nobody, a private citizen -- over signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Interestingly enough, the SCOTUS had just ruled in South Carolina that there had to be signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Therefore, Raffensperger violated an established judicial precedent and legal ruling.“

“In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that ballots could continue to come in after Election Day. There were also egregious and unconstitutional actions in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona where election laws were changed, but not by the duly elected representatives of the people.”

Pence not challenging the slates that were presented unconstitutionally is itself a threat to our republic and constitution…

 

[DadSmith]

Soros Foundation concerned about Trump's potential 2024 victory, fearing globalism's jeopardy. | Conservative News Daily™

George Soros's foundation, led by his son Alex Soros, is concerned about a potential 2024 election victory by Donald Trump, fearing it may disrupt globalist "unity." The Open Society Foundations (OSF) is preparing to address the perceived threats posed by a "MAGA-style Republican victory" by...

www.conservativenewsdaily.net

The truth comes out finally why Trump is being targeted.

“Former ‌United States President Donald Trump—or at ⁢least someone with his isolationist and anti-European policies—will be the Republican nominee,” he predicted. ⁣He believes ‌that “a MAGA-style Republican victory in next year’s U.S. presidential election ⁣could, in the end, be worse ‍for the EU than for⁣ the U.S.”

 

[Ingomike]

I think you’re desperately searching deep in the constitution’s presumed penumbrae to find how the VPOTUS has any authority to do this. It certainly isn’t in any clearly worded language.

Oh you do so love imagining what others are doing in your fevered mind…

 

[jamil]

Oh you do so love imagining what others are doing in your fevered mind…

Where else are you going tondind the wording that gave Pence the authority to just pick a different slat of electors to count? I’m giving you benefit of doubt here.

You’re welcome.

 

[jamil]

Soros Foundation concerned about Trump's potential 2024 victory, fearing globalism's jeopardy. | Conservative News Daily™

George Soros's foundation, led by his son Alex Soros, is concerned about a potential 2024 election victory by Donald Trump, fearing it may disrupt globalist "unity." The Open Society Foundations (OSF) is preparing to address the perceived threats posed by a "MAGA-style Republican victory" by...

www.conservativenewsdaily.net

The truth comes out finally why Trump is being targeted.

Maybe the ****er should just go live in the EU.

 

[Ingomike]

Where else are you going tondind the wording that gave Pence the authority to just pick a different slat of electors to count? I’m giving you benefit of doubt here.

You’re welcome.

I never said he could ”just pick a different slate of electors”. Who did?

 

[jamil]

I never said he could ”just pick a different slate of electors”. Who did?

That’s what we’re talking about here. This is one of the accusations in the indictment. That the plan was essentially to have Pence, as President of the Senate, choose Trump’s electors over the ones officially certified by those 7 states.

Are you now saying the VPOTUS foes not have that power?

 

[Ingomike]

That’s what we’re talking about here. This is one of the accusations in the indictment. That the plan was essentially to have Pence, as President of the Senate, choose Trump’s electors over the ones officially certified by those 7 states.

Are you now saying the VPOTUS foes not have that power?

I have NEVER said the VP could choose electors, he can reject electors as unconstitutional.

That said, having alternative slates of electors is legal to set up.

So SOS changes election procedures unilaterally and certifies the election of the electors. Then a second set of electors is created and the legislature votes to send them, the VP can accept the second slate as they were constitutionally selected. IF the electors are selected by the legislature the VP can choose them over those sent by the SOS…

 

[BugI02]

My understanding of the constitution starts with swearing to support and defend the constitution. Accepting slates of electors that are known to be unconstitutionally determined is a violation of that oath.

“In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, entered into a consent agreement with Stacey Abrams -- a nobody, a private citizen -- over signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Interestingly enough, the SCOTUS had just ruled in South Carolina that there had to be signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Therefore, Raffensperger violated an established judicial precedent and legal ruling.“

“In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that ballots could continue to come in after Election Day. There were also egregious and unconstitutional actions in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona where election laws were changed, but not by the duly elected representatives of the people.”

Pence not challenging the slates that were presented unconstitutionally is itself a threat to our republic and constitution…

jamil is only interested in gaming some potential negative prospects of if Pence/VP has the powers that he (jamil) does not want him to have

He fails to extend his extrapolation to what the situation would be if just about anyone in state.gov can change election rules on voting periods, verification requirements and acceptance standards during a ginned-up 'emergency' without the legislature
serving as the primary check and balance on fraud

If no one but the courts have the power to limit such activities, and the courts have shown they are unwilling to intervene in such a way as to determine an electoral outcome after the election is certified, then you have a recipe for endless emergencies with attendant rule changes to aid one partisan group or another. You will never get to good government if one side can just use raw power to gain or keep authority. That way lies madness

 

[Ingomike]

That’s what we’re talking about here. This is one of the accusations in the indictment. That the plan was essentially to have Pence, as President of the Senate, choose Trump’s electors over the ones officially certified by those 7 states.

I am not finding that to be true. This is disinformation. There is an enormous difference between rejecting slates and picking slates. Eastman is battling a disbarment trial in California now,


“Eastman’s attorney Randy Miller asked Jacob [Pence’s attorney at the time] about a memo he wrote where he stated that “scholars disagree” whether it’s the vice president’s responsibility to substantively deal with accepting electoral slates. Jacob admitted, “There is a section in the Constitution that is at best ambiguous whether the vice president can reject electoral slates.” He cited three legal scholars who wrote articles arguing that the vice president has somewhat of a substantive role in that area, and said this question was “debated and disputed” in law review articles.”

 

[KLB]

jamil is only interested in gaming some potential negative prospects of if Pence/VP has the powers that he (jamil) does not want him to have

He fails to extend his extrapolation to what the situation would be if just about anyone in state.gov can change election rules on voting periods, verification requirements and acceptance standards during a ginned-up 'emergency' without the legislature
serving as the primary check and balance on fraud

If no one but the courts have the power to limit such activities, and the courts have shown they are unwilling to intervene in such a way as to determine an electoral outcome after the election is certified, then you have a recipe for endless emergencies with attendant rule changes to aid one partisan group or another. You will never get to good government if one side can just use raw power to gain or keep authority. That way lies madness

Did anyone bother to sue the state before the election?

 

[Ingomike]

Did anyone bother to sue the state before the election?

Yes. They were told no harm had yet occurred and to come back later by Alito but later, they then turned it down on standing…

 

[KLB]

Yes. They were told no harm had yet occurred and to come back later by Alito but later, they then turned it down on standing…

Did it start in the state courts? I would think that would be a State issue, not a federal one.

 

[jamil]

My understanding of the constitution starts with swearing to support and defend the constitution. Accepting slates of electors that are known to be unconstitutionally determined is a violation of that oath.

“In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, entered into a consent agreement with Stacey Abrams -- a nobody, a private citizen -- over signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Interestingly enough, the SCOTUS had just ruled in South Carolina that there had to be signature verification on unsolicited mail-in ballots. Therefore, Raffensperger violated an established judicial precedent and legal ruling.“

“In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that ballots could continue to come in after Election Day. There were also egregious and unconstitutional actions in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona where election laws were changed, but not by the duly elected representatives of the people.”

Pence not challenging the slates that were presented unconstitutionally is itself a threat to our republic and constitution…

You keep saying it was something it wasn’t. They’re not alleging that Trump merely pressured Pence to challenge the legitimacy of the certification of the votes transmitted to him as President of the Senate.

The plan was to have Trump’s slate of electors send in fake certifications where ultimately, Pence would choose Trump’s electors to count, and then Trump would be declared the winner of the electoral college.

So I think it’s irrelevant to claim that Pence has the power to contest the legitimacy of the certifications when that’s not what’s alleged. So defend Trump for that. Either make the case that the allegation is false, that there was nonsuch plan underway, or defend the idea that Pence had constitutional authority to do it, so therefore, Trump wasn’t asking Pence to go against the constitution.

 

[BugI02]

The plan was to have Trump’s slate of electors send in fake certifications where ultimately, Pence would choose Trump’s electors to count, and then Trump would be declared the winner of the electoral college.

I would like to see a concise, for real citation of that opinion

It is clear that the only result of any action by the VP, which must be in response to a dispute arising within any state in question, is to trigger a mechanism whereby the House and Senate act to resolve the dispute

Do you have a citation where Trump states that an elector roster swap was the goal with that state's votes in the electoral college just awarded differently, that the VP in effect settles the dispute?

 

[jamil]

I am not finding that to be true. This is disinformation. There is an enormous difference between rejecting slates and picking slates. Eastman is battling a disbarment trial in California now,


“Eastman’s attorney Randy Miller asked Jacob [Pence’s attorney at the time] about a memo he wrote where he stated that “scholars disagree” whether it’s the vice president’s responsibility to substantively deal with accepting electoral slates. Jacob admitted, “There is a section in the Constitution that is at best ambiguous whether the vice president can reject electoral slates.” He cited three legal scholars who wrote articles arguing that the vice president has somewhat of a substantive role in that area, and said this question was “debated and disputed” in law review articles.”

It's in the indictment. So if you're finding that part not to be true, you haven't read it. If you're not finding facts which support the allegations, I'd say it's probably too soon to say. You don't know what the prosecution's evidence is for it. I suspect that Pence is a major source for the government's case.