Posted on 03/05/2024 10:53:09 AM PST by one guy in new jersey
Edited on 03/05/2024 10:58:47 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
.
VP could have sent results back for verification
An audit of a type. Pence refused
Republicans do not know how to pivot during interviews.
Re: 2 - I don’t believe he could do that.
Would Al Gore in 2000 or Joe Biden in 2016 have been able to throw out the election results?
Another ineligible anchor baby with his ideas about our Constitution. How and why do we have so many of them running their mouths and pretending to be natural born Americans-—Cruz, Rubio, Gabbard, Harris, Haley, Ramaswamy, etc.
Why they changed the law.
If he couldn’t then why did the democrats quickly pass a law making the VP certification of election results a ceremonial act. Indicates to me they knew he was within his rights to legally do what #2 said. But, there are arguments on both sides and only the SCOTUS could provide the answer.
That was after 01/06.
And that law may not be constitutional.
Now why, oh why would Trump ever ask VP to ever reject the outcome of an election? This question is never asked in context.
Trump never ever said the vice president could overturn an election. He said he could have it examined, in keeping with established precedentl. Is Rubio that stupid? Seems like he is lying.
As I've said before, the whole conversation on this subject over the last 3+ years has been retarded.
You don't take an electoral vote certification document that has been properly signed and sealed as required under the U.S. Constitution and send it back "for verification."
That's like mailing a check in the mail to pay a bill, and the credit card company sends it back to you "just to be sure" you intended to send the payment.
Re: 9 - John Eastman was advocating a novel legal theory, and there was no state legislature that approved a second slate of electors in 2020, which seems to me to be a requirement for Eastman’s plan to have State Legislatures decide which slate should be used.
The VP’s role per the Constitution is to simply count the votes.
Had Pence refused to do that, he and Trump would have been impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office in less than 48 hours. They impeached him anyway, but was spared conviction because he was already leaving office.
That has nothing to do with whether the election was sketchy or not. It has to do with his lawsuits all failing before the clock ran out. And from a legal standpoint, nothing has changed since then.
People may not like this opinion and would rather just keep playing the victim, which is actually counter productive. You want to win the game, you have to play by the rules. Or get them adjusted.
Agree.
It was never to “overturn” but to look into ballot counting problems, do some recounts, examine and investigate discrepancies and to delay certification until serious allegations were looked into.
That is not what Trump said.
…adjustment. Is what happened after 2020.
The arguments on both sides are political, not legal. The proof of this is that you had hack TV lawyers like Mark Levin making the exact opposite "legal arguments" in January 2017 and January 2021.
And the last thing this country would ever want is having the U.S. Supreme Court making rulings on electoral vote proceedings in a presidential election. The judicial branch of government should never be allowed to make legal rulings about ongoing proceedings in the other two branches of government.
Few!
Wassup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.