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

GP ^ | 11/23/2022 | Cristina Laila

[Jumper]

J6 Committee is a Congressional or House or Representatives outside the legal bounds of Congressional rules because it does not include opposition party members selected by the opposition party, or jointly selected by both parties to represent republicans.

DOJ cannot just swoop in after Liz Chaney is out of congress, and the Republicans take over the House, before Republicans have a chance to either close up the operation or to continue it operation with actual current serving congress critters.

Garland cannot take the records from Congress. The Congress should retain a full record of the proceedings and documentation backing up the committee findings.

Even if Garland and DOJ try to Upshur this “so called investigation” Congress should be a part of it going forward.

This is an illegal extra-judical grab - SCOTUS should rule that Republicans with a majority in the House are the only ones who can request DOJ involvement. Republican leadership of the committee along with new sitting members of congress should be appointed by either party to be on this committee.

Additonally, the fact that this committee was improperly set up in congress makes it “not a congressional investigation”, but and ad hoc type rouge group of people running a fake committee. SCOTUS should rule further in support of the Republican leadership claims to these proceedings that because of the nature of disbarring republicans from the group, it be null and void, in that any and all investigative activity by the Cheny led group is TAINTED.

[Steve Van Doorn]

The real coup took place on Jan 3 when they decided to let the speaker of the house take charge of the count and not by US code
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/congress-rules-electoral-college-count-454023

Which on Jan 6 she only allowed 11 republicans on the floor using "covid" rules.
That alone didn't allow Trump to get a quorum if it came to that. Which it didn't there was a breach by a clear false flag which the media called "MAGA" people that took place which stopped the objections from proceeding. Which I believe Pence was in on that breach when he made a tweet minutes before the start of the breach stating he was a coward and refused to do his job required by US code.

said, "Objections were raised by various members of the House and Senate"

The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given." Referring to covid rules which the state legislators didn't get a vote on. Which obviously they didn't. Then the breach took place making even less "regular circumstances"

They only allowed 11 Republicans on the floor (House speaker covid rules) thereby a quorum (12th amendment) by the states where not allow to proceed assuming it made it that far. Pence broke US code right there.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-167/issue-4/house-section

This was a Coup d'état using covid rules and a likely intentional poor understanding of US code.
https://rumble.com/v1gz37d-the-pence-card-a-january-6-theory-w-ivan-raiklin-the-zelenko-report-episode.html

Their stated reason later was because "Pence didn't entertain the objection"
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/congress-rules-electoral-college-count-454023
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Everything that was done in Congress on January 6th was fully compliant with the Electoral Count Act of 1887 — to the extent that law is even constitutional at all. Under no circumstances should Congress be empowered to override the will of individual states in a presidential election process.

Read the text of the 12th Amendment to see exactly what the VP’s role in the process is. It’s very simple. His job is to count the electoral votes that have been sent to Congress by the states. The time to deal with all those irregularities in the voting processes was BEFORE the electoral votes were certified in December.

[central_va]

Wow, what a “useful idiot” of the steal. Like a trained seal.

[Leep]

I’ve learn a couple things these past few years.
Crime pays..if you’re a Democrat.
And the majority of our leaders are morons and/or corrupt.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe I missed something in your post. Did you provide any factual information to refute what I had posted?

[Steve Van Doorn]

i said, "Jan 6 she(speaker of the house) only allowed 11 republicans on the floor using "covid" rules.
That alone didn't allow Trump to get a quorum"
They're required to be on the floor to accept their vote.

said, "Everything that was done in Congress on January 6th was fully compliant with the Electoral Count Act of 1887"

That is true if 11 >= 286 (For a majority)
If 11 is greater then 286 then they did comply with the electoral count act of 1887.
Other wise it was a Coup d'état

Again the objection wasn't based if they should count the vote or not.
The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given."
Referring to covid rules which the state legislators didn't get a vote on. Which obviously they didn't.
Then the breach took place making even less "regular circumstances"

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t know why you keep bringing up the number 11. There were around 400 House votes on every measure that came up that day.

And the state legislatures in question had every opportunity to fix — or even override — the election processes in their own states, but refused to do so. Even something as simple as sending a competing slate of electors would have made a huge difference. That doesn’t make any of this a matter for Congress (or the VP) to decide.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "There were around 400 House votes on every measure that came up that day"

Yes there where. Though to legally count their vote they must be on the floor. If the speaker of the house didn't agree with the vote she could disregard the vote as not recognized.
IE: Coup d'état.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "state legislatures in question had every opportunity to fix — or even override — the election processes in their own states"

remember Jan 6 and 7th is the only time states are allowed to question other states vote count. Before then a state could turn in that they have a billion votes and they can recount their votes and still get a billion votes in a country with 350 million people.

Reminder voter turn out was over 50% greater then the largest turnout in US history of 2008. When 1% change makes or brakes elections. It was a statistical impossibility.

[John S Mosby]

All true. But the current Electoral Act provides for the Congress to object to the slate of Electors “selected” by illegal acts under their own State Constitutions. Get your point,but there were 141 formal motions filed objecting to the approval (the “rubber stamp” the “brave” Pence provided instead of following Parliamentary Congressional procedures and hearing the objections. Said number of objections so accepted by the body in voting at the session— the approval could not have happened.)

Take a look at the crap the dems in the lame duck are trying to ram through for biden’s signature— closing the elements of the 1885 Electoral Act so NO objections may be heard on January 6th joint Session). Pence bumped elbows with... of all people Nantzi Pelosi-—something Constitutionalists will never forget. The snake— they lying tootie snake in the bag all 4 years he had a duty to clean up the federal election process right down to the Jan 6th “formality” which should have been a days long procedure—not a rubber stamp. Pence should get a job as a airline ticket taker— useless turd.

[Alberta's Child]

remember Jan 6 and 7th is the only time states are allowed to question other states vote count. Before then a state could turn in that they have a billion votes and they can recount their votes and still get a billion votes in a country with 350 million people.

There is no “vote count” to consider on January 6/7. All they are doing is counting the electoral votes that were previously certified in December. The only reason for a state to question another state’s electoral votes is if there are multiple slates of electors sent from one state — one certified by the state election board and one submitted by the legislature, for example. The constitution is very clear that each state is free to establish its own method for choosing presidential electors.

[Alberta's Child]

But the current Electoral Act provides for the Congress to object to the slate of Electors “selected” by illegal acts under their own State Constitutions.

This is why the current Electoral Act is almost certainly unconstitutional. If Congress could reject electors from a state (presuming there are no competing electors submitted for that state), then you have basically turned the U.S. into a parliamentary government where the executive branch leader is selected by Congress. You’d have Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi objecting to Wyoming’s three electors (for example) because one dude from a Shoshone Indian reservation claims he wasn’t able to vote.

[Steve Van Doorn]

clarification:
"previously certified (by the state) in December"

From US code quoting (Link in post 42):
"the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates"

purporting definition: To have or present the often false appearance
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/purporting

[Steve Van Doorn]

They did not object to authenticity of the certificates.

The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given." Did the state legislators have a chance have over site over the rules.

The obvious answer was no. Because they didn't the rules were forced through by un-elected bureaucrats. This objection vote was disrupted by a false flag bad actors entrapping a few MAGA to enter the opened doors of the building. AND not allowing enough representatives to vote on the house floor.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "the executive branch leader is selected by Congress"

no. again the objection was based around state legislators getting a chance to over see the rules. Which other legislators attempting to give them that chance.

The term here is an out of control technocracy
(which means: A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts)

[Alberta's Child]

Please get your facts straight. All of the objections were heard. For states where the minimum threshold of one objecting member of each house of Congress was met, the two houses then convened separately to vote on them.

The objections were rejected by overwhelming margins. Case closed.

[Alberta's Child]

no. again the objection was based around state legislators getting a chance to over see the rules. Which other legislators attempting to give them that chance.

Your whole premise here is preposterous. It is ludicrous for members of Congress from Texas (for example) to object to electoral votes certified by Pennsylvania (for example) on the grounds that Pennsylvania failed to follow the laws established by its legislature … when Pennsylvania’s own legislature never made any such objection.

The U.S. constitution was written for a collection of sovereign states. This idea that one state would take it upon itself to interpret and enforce the laws of another state is ludicrous.

[Alberta's Child]

They did not object to authenticity of the certificates.

Then any objections were completely out of line. They had no basis to object at all.

[Steve Van Doorn]

You have not addressed one of my points. You give what you believe are talking points and pretend you answered my point.
Alberta's Child said, " the two houses then convened separately to vote on them"

Which implies you believe 11 >= 286 (286 for a majority in house)
The vote that could've been turned away as "not recognized" was interrupted by a false flag operation when the capital police unlocked the front doors.

said, "They had no basis to object at all."

The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given."
Which implies you believe covid rules given by bureaucratic and not approved by legislators where regular circumstances?

You're either not reading what I say, comprehending what I say or a bad actor as you do not address my points.