Skip to comments.
DEVELOPING: Justice Department Seeking to Question Mike Pence in its Criminal Investigation Into January 6 SPECIAL COUNSEL
GP ^
| 11/23/2022
| Cristina Laila
Posted on 11/23/2022 4:15:27 PM PST by AnthonySoprano
DEVELOPING: Justice Department Seeking to Question Mike Pence in its Criminal Investigation Into January 6
The New York Times reported:
The Justice Department is seeking to question former Vice President Mike Pence as a witness in connection with its criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter.
(Snip)
President Trump will likely move to block Pence’s testimony by invoking executive privilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: counsel; smith; special
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 last
To: StAnDeliver
said, "If you read both of those cover to cover, then you will understand the constitutional limits on the meeting of the Electoral College."
I have.
81
posted on
11/26/2022 12:42:32 PM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
To: Alberta's Child
I answered the first question. Which was a point of order made by Paul Gosar regrading the stacked votes. Don't quote me on this. Going by memory.
He asked how can we have a vote with only 11 members on the floor?
Pence answered, "Debate is not allowed."
Paul Gosar responded, "that wasn't my question."
My question is regarding the 11 members only allowed on the floor.
Pence response was "Debate isn't allowed." then Shut Gosar off as those he answered his question and was interrupting.
Which that exchange proved to me Pence is in on the stacked voting of the objection or he is a moron.
82
posted on
11/26/2022 12:50:32 PM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
To: Steve Van Doorn
I can’t post an active link here, but I would ask you to please review these votes on January 6-7 and tell me what I am missing.
There were only TWO states where the GOP was able to muster the minimum threshold to actually vote on an objection (Arizona and Pennsylvania). And both of those objections failed miserably. And they had far more than 11 votes in both chambers.
https://ballotpedia.org/Counting_of_electoral_votes_(January_6-7,_2021)
83
posted on
11/26/2022 1:22:28 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("It's midnight in Manhattan. This is no time to get cute; it's a mad dog's promenade.")
To: Steve Van Doorn
"I have.You read a 131-page treatise on the the Electoral Count Act, and a 24-page law review article, in 21 minutes. Riiiiiight.
Well, we're done here.
You're a fantasist, undereducated, jealous of people who have devoted their lives to the study of electoral history, too old to learn anything new; and yet you badger people with a thousand questions, just hoping beyond hope that they offer a sliver of anything factual that lines up with your fantasy.
Sorry, you fooled me for a moment.
But, here you are...
84
posted on
11/26/2022 1:27:47 PM PST
by
StAnDeliver
(Tanned, rested, and ready.)
To: Alberta's Child
said, "they had far more than 11 votes in both chambers"
I'm clearly not getting across to you why only 11 members allowed to vote was unacceptable.
Forget about the vote that they used. Put that out of your head. Those votes I can talk about later.
The process was unacceptable. Which was brought up in a point of order.
1. Only people on the floor are allowed to vote LEGALLY.
2. They had 11 republicans and 11 democrats to vote legally.
3. All others where not legally allowed to vote.
4. It was up to the will of the speaker of the house (re guarding the house vote) to accept the none legal votes.
5. Once the 11 legal vote requirement was made. Trump lost even if the vote went his way.
As far as the vote goes that did take place on the objection.
There were a hand full that voted which it was going to be close it might have gone Trumps way. Then the doors where unlocked and the voting was stopped. The voting restarted later. When they returned the voting went against Trump. As most everyone assumed those where Trumps people that interrupted the proceedings and voted against him.
85
posted on
11/26/2022 1:49:26 PM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
To: Alberta's Child
I had to look up the exchange between Pence and whom I thought was Gosar when it was actually Griffith of Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Vice President, in order to follow the Speaker's instructions that only a limited number of people be on the floor, may I ask how one would make an objection or make a parliamentary inquiry in the future if you are not on the floor but in the gallery.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Under section 18 of title 3, United States Code,
debate is not permitted in the joint session. ...
Mr. Vice President, I am not attempting to debate. I am trying to find out how a parliamentary inquiry or a parliamentary point of order would be made in following with the Speaker's request that most of us not be on the floor. How do you make one of those points of order when you don't know what is going to happen later?
The VICE PRESIDENT. Respectfully, the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry constitutes
debate, which is not permitted in the joint session
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-167/issue-4/house-section/article/H76-4
86
posted on
11/26/2022 3:11:22 PM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
To: StAnDeliver
said, "You read a 131-page treatise on the the Electoral Count Act, and a 24-page law review article, in 21 minutes. Riiiiiight."
You're right it took me hours. Long before you asked.
What would you like to know?
87
posted on
11/26/2022 3:17:56 PM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
To: Steve Van Doorn
It’s a very simple issue.
Parliamentary inquiries or points of order are made under the rules of the legislative chamber. The House has its rules. The Senate has its rules. A joint session of Congress does not operate that way. That’s why you never see someone in Congress standing up and yelling “Point of order!” during the State of the Union address, for example.
Any parliamentary points or inquiries would be addressed if and when the two houses of Congress convene separately for the votes on the objections (which they did).
1. Did this Griffith dude make any such inquiry or point of order during the separate House and Senate votes that day?
2. Did he do any such thing when Pelosi had the House establish its remote/proxy voting rule ten months earlier?
I think you’ve bought into a bunch of silly theatrics by this Griffith guy.
88
posted on
11/27/2022 4:27:35 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("It's midnight in Manhattan. This is no time to get cute; it's a mad dog's promenade.")
To: Alberta's Child
89
posted on
11/27/2022 11:00:19 AM PST
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson