DEVELOPING: Justice Department Seeking to Question Mike Pence in its Criminal Investigation Into January 6 SPECIAL COUNSEL

GP ^ | 11/23/2022 | Cristina Laila

[Steve Van Doorn]

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.

[Steve Van Doorn]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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)

[StAnDeliver]

"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...

[Steve Van Doorn]

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.

[Steve Van Doorn]

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

[Steve Van Doorn]

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?

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[Steve Van Doorn]

1. yes.
2. yes which clarifies why Griffith used inquiries rather then a point of order or question of consideration. They where not allowed. Then Pence didn't accept inquiries as he claims that is debate.
Remote voting by proxy only changes who votes not how they vote.
If you can't be on the floor then someone can take your place. Which the speaker of the house can reject that person.
What I said earlier still applies.

It was their way or a two thirds vote to over rule the speaker of the house.

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/Rule_HRES965HR6800.pdf
https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/explaining-us-houses-new-proxy-voting-measures