Trump 2024 ???

[actaeon277]

But Biden is TOTALLY truthful



Totally

 

[jamil]

The claims made in any indictment are not any more proven than claims of a Kraken. The prosecution alleges that it can prove its assertions later. Given the record of the government bringing those allegations I rate them as Kraken 2.0

Before you tell me that indictments are somehow more truthful for having been presented to a Grand Jury, consider the ham sandwich

I'm telling you that the indictments allege what they allege. No more. We can speculate on that all we want. I'm not asserting any facts other than what some of the allegations are. I didn't say any of the allegations are true. In fact, I said we'd have to wait to hear it out.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm pretty sure it is up to the state's legislatures how they choose they electors. That would make it a state issue.

That is precisely the issue, the legislatures, of several states, prescribed the process of selecting electors and those not constitutionally allowed to prescribe the process changed the process the legislature set up. That is unconstitutional.

 

[KLB]

That is precisely the issue, the legislatures, of several states, prescribed the process of selecting electors and those not constitutionally allowed to prescribe the process changed the process the legislature set up. That is unconstitutional.

No, it is up to those legislatures to decide that and fight it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

STANDING. New law likely cannot be challenged until a VP is limited if their duties. There are many unconstitutional laws in place…

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's not how constitutionally appropriate executive (or legislative, for that matter) work. The executive ASSERTS the power and those who beleive it's not appropriate take it to the judicial branch.

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…

It's been asserted MANY times on this thread and others that Pence had the authority to "ignore" state elector slates that he, at his sole discretion, deemed "under controversy".

And you are ignoring Eastman's memo... and the 12th Amendment, if Pence had ignored the slates of various states that Trump lost, "the majority of the whole number of Electors appointed" would no longer be 270... because at least in the ClownWorld Eastman theory, Pence had the right to reject the appointment of state slates.

Farcical? You betcha! But that **** has been on these pages and elsewhere for quite some time.

And you ignored the question,,, if Pence HAD the constitutional power, then no law can supercede it, only an amendment.

Does VP Kamala Harris likewise have this "power" January 6, 2025?

 

[Ingomike]

I'm telling you that the indictments allege what they allege. No more. We can speculate on that all we want. I'm not asserting any facts other than what some of the allegations are. I didn't say any of the allegations are true. In fact, I said we'd have to wait to hear it out.

Can you post the text you are referring to? Just skimmed the document and do not see the words you are using in our discussion.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That is precisely the issue, the legislatures, of several states, prescribed the process of selecting electors and those not constitutionally allowed to prescribe the process changed the process the legislature set up. That is unconstitutional.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.

The SCOTUS ruled on the "Independent state legislature theory", that the legislature alone, without judicial review, establishes the state's federal election law, in Moore v Harper... and REJECTED it 6-3.

Moore v. Harper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ingomike]

Does VP Kamala Harris likewise have this "power" January 6, 2025?

Already answered that question. She does. If there never would be a situation where EC votes were contested the framers would not have put in the contingencies they did.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

@indymike you and I may agree that the PA Supreme Court had NO right to muddle with the state's election law's during COVID, but the SCOTUS has spoken and said, yes, the state's courts CAN review the legislature's federal election laws with regard to the state and federal constitutions... and make rulings.

And if the PA courts make rulings that the people of PA disagree with, they can elect/reject those judges or elect officials who will appoint others consistent with their principles on the matter.

That's how it's done in a, ummmm, what's the word I'm looking for? It seems to be escaping this conversation... oh yes, that's right a DEMOCRACY.

Nothing about democracy guarantees "perfect"... but it does guarantee a mechanism for change.

ETA: edited first sentence to correct it... it was obtuse... I agree with Mike that the PA courts muddled specifically to make the vote counting "better" for Dems. And should not have.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Already answered that question. She does. If there never would be a situation where EC votes were contested the framers would not have put in the contingencies they did.

Thank you for answering... I didn't see the answer elsewhere, but have been out of pocket for some time now.

Quoted for future reference.

 

[Ingomike]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.

The SCOTUS ruled on the "Independent state legislature theory", that the legislature alone, without judicial review, establishes the state's federal election law, in Moore v Harper... and REJECTED it 6-3.

Moore v. Harper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You keep saying that but it is not true. The truth is NONE of this he’s been litigated nor even much discussed in scholarly debate. So you and I are not going to solve it.

Disputed Presidential Elections and the Collapse of Constitutional Norms

This Article exposes the vulnerabilities of the legal framework governing Congress’s role in resolving disputed presidential elections: the Electoral Count Act

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

 

[Ingomike]

@indymike you and I may agree that the PA Supreme Court had NO right to muddle with the state's election law's during COVID, but the SCOTUS has spoken and said, yes, the state's courts CAN review the legislature's federal election laws with regard to the state and federal constitutions... and make rulings.

And if the PA courts make rulings that the people of PA disagree with, they can elect/reject those judges or elect officials who will appoint others consistent with their principles on the matter.

That's how it's done in a, ummmm, what's the word I'm looking for? It seems to be escaping this conversation... oh yes, that's right a DEMOCRACY.

Nothing about democracy guarantees "perfect"... but it does guarantee a mechanism for change.

ETA: edited first sentence to correct it... it was obtuse... I agree with Mike that the PA courts muddled specifically to make the vote counting "better" for Dems. And should not have.

And that is unconstitutional in the process of selecting EC voters. The equal protection and civil rights violations are a different animal.

I live in a constitutional representative republic and that constitution rules, and no it did not account for every dirty trick corrupt politicians can throw at it.

The article I linked said if the dirty politicians wanted to the crap could have hit the fan in 9 of 34 elections.

“In each case, political actors playing constitutional hardball could execute the strategy while staying within the strict bounds of the law by abandoning informal constitutional norms.”

That is what I believe you are saying, the the Eastman proposals would surpass, “informal constitutional norms”, but I do not believe they violate the constitution.

 

[jamil]

Why do you **** around with indictments when the actual record is there for all to read. Have you read it? Seems unlikely. Please show where “Pence was ultimately pressured to pick a different slate of electors“ in the actual memo from Eastman. They have suckered you again with their made up allegations…

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I think you should read the indictment. They're calling out a lot more than just that one memo. Other memos, conversations, emails. But like I said, I suspect that they're relying a lot on Mike Pence's testimony. In one, they quote the RNC chair as even referring to the alternate slates as "fake" electors. So what if that's true?

You guys keep acting as if I'm rooting for a guilty verdict before the trial. I'm hoping it's ********. But I'm not making any predictions about that.

 

[jamil]

Credibility matters.

Trump is a liar.

Credibility doesn't matter. Perception of credibility matters. No one has credibility anymore.

 

[jamil]

oh yes, that's right a DEMOCRACY

WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY! WE'RE A REPUBLIC!

 

[jamil]

That's not how constitutionally appropriate executive (or legislative, for that matter) work. The executive ASSERTS the power and those who beleive it's not appropriate take it to the judicial branch.

It's been asserted MANY times on this thread and others that Pence had the authority to "ignore" state elector slates that he, at his sole discretion, deemed "under controversy".

And you are ignoring Eastman's memo... and the 12th Amendment, if Pence had ignored the slates of various states that Trump lost, "the majority of the whole number of Electors appointed" would no longer be 270... because at least in the ClownWorld Eastman theory, Pence had the right to reject the appointment of state slates.

Farcical? You betcha! But that **** has been on these pages and elsewhere for quite some time.

And you ignored the question,,, if Pence HAD the constitutional power, then no law can supercede it, only an amendment.

Does VP Kamala Harris likewise have this "power" January 6, 2025?

I'm sorry. Clownworld™ is trademarked to represent nutty left. You'll need to use a different word for nutty right.

 

[jamil]

Can you post the text you are referring to? Just skimmed the document and do not see the words you are using in our discussion.

Well, I put it in my own words because, of all things, their werdz were too werdy. See post 5732. I quoted the summary paragraph that outlines the plan wherein they get fake slates of electors to transmit their fake certified votes to the President of the Senate (Pence), and then ultimately Pence "supplants" (their word) the certified slate of electors with the fake ones.

And you want me to post a link? C'mon man. It's easy to google even from an iPhone. Trump indictment. Top hit, at least several days ago when I googled it, was: https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Paragraph 53 is the one I quoted. Read on though from there where they provide more of the details they outlined in 53.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, I put it in my own words because, of all things, their werdz were too werdy. See post 5732. I quoted the summary paragraph that outlines the plan wherein they get fake slates of electors to transmit their fake certified votes to the President of the Senate (Pence), and then ultimately Pence "supplants" (their word) the certified slate of electors with the fake ones.

And you want me to post a link? C'mon man. It's easy to google even from an iPhone. Trump indictment. Top hit, at least several days ago when I googled it, was: https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Paragraph 53 is the one I quoted. Read on though from there where they provide more of the details they outlined in 53.

Thanks. That is exactly what I saw. Are you interpreting it that sending alternative slates of electors equals trying to get Pence to choose them?

 

[jamil]

Thanks. That is exactly what I saw. Are you interpreting it that sending alternative slates of electors equals trying to get Pence to choose them?

Their word used in the indictment was "supplant". Pence's involvement in this, allegedly, which was what we were discussing, would be that he would ultimately gavel in Trump as the POTUS. That's not all the plan, but that's pretty much Pence's part.

 

[Ingomike]

Their word used in the indictment was "supplant". Pence's involvement in this, allegedly, which was what we were discussing, would be that he would ultimately gavel in Trump as the POTUS. That's not all the plan, but that's pretty much Pence's part.

I have not seen any evidence of this plan. He was asked to send the electors back to their respective legislatures giving time to let them send the electors of their choosing and to throw it to the house and senate, both of which seem constitutional to me…