Posted on 12/23/2020 5:59:12 AM PST by LS
There has been a lot of discussion about Pence's role in the upcoming counting of the elector slates.
In 1797 there was a single challenge from, as I recall, Georgia, whose electors had filled out the paperwork wrong. John Adams, the veep, stood to become president by not entertaining any objections. But when he came to Georgia, he sat down for a moment. Thomas Jefferson had ordered the Democratic Republicans NOT to contest, and after a moment, Adams resumed the count . . . in his favor.
A similar episode happened in 1801 with Jefferson doing the reading and an issue with (as I recall) VT. This time Jefferson did not pause, but kept on reading.
In 1960, Hawaii's electoral votes, which by popular vote should have gone to Nixon, were objected to and awarded to JFK, though they made no difference.
That's the historical precedent.
My understanding of the process is as follows:
1) The two houses meet in Joint Session Jan. 6, I think. 2) Two tellers from the Senate and two tellers from the House tally the electors SUBMITTED BY THE STATES. This would include the Biteme electors from MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA, PA. Those tellers had their lists---which must all agree---to the Vice President who presides over the Senate---to read.
Pence then says, "The state of Alabama gives its x electors to . . .; the state of Alaska gives its x electors to . . ."
3) At any point an objection may be raised to any slate. This must include one senator and one congressman.
4) If say Brooks and Hawley object, Pence would say, "An objection has been raised to the slate from Arizona. The chambers will now retire to discuss the objections."
HE DOES NOT HIMSELF ACCEPT OR REJECT ANYTHING. He merely presides.
5) Presumably, at this point, the Senate walks to the senate chambers (realize, this is a kind of pain in the ass. Now imagine it being done six times). The House of course will accept ALL Biteme slates. For any challenge to be accepted BOTH houses must agree. If they do not, "tie goes to the runner" in this case the slates submitted by the states. Unless both houses agree, not one single Trump slate would be accepted.
6) But even then, how many of you really think that a Trump challenge slate in the Senate would carry? At best we start out with 50 votes, but no Pence to break the tie in this particular case. Tie goes to the runner. So you need 51 of the 53. Minion, Sasshole, MurCowSki, Collins, and probably Grahamnesty would never vote for the Trump slate. My guess is in fact you'd be lucky to get 20 votes for the challenge slate.
But it doesn't matter because tie goes to the runner, the official slate sent by the states.
7) So they meet again in Joint Session after discussions and even if the Senate has voted for the Trump slate, Pence announces AZ's electoral votes go to Biteme.
Note again, Pence has no role of power whatsoever except to as a parliamentarian to accept the objection of a senator/congressman.
Hope this clears up some of the muck.
Here’s an interesting take on this whole mess.
White House Memo 1
IS THIS THE TRUMP CARD?
Sources in the Trump administration confirmed to National File that President Donald Trump’s most vocal advocates within the White House have determined that both U.S. Code and the Constitution contain language that requires Vice President Mike Pence to reject unlawful Electoral College certificates, but Pence must act by no later than Wednesday, December 23.
The drafters of this White House memo believe that the federal check to the states’ elections resides with Vice President Mike Pence in his role as President of the Senate. Additionally, Pence has the sole power determine whether to reject impermissible states of electors. However, Pence is legally required to do this on the fourth Wednesday in December, which this year falls on December 23.
National File’s sources in the White House indicated that the memo was requested by those in the President’s circle who are most keen to see the 2020 election, and the ensuing fallout, administered in as transparent of a manner as possible. They also indicate that the push to find a path to verify the 2020 election’s integrity is not coming solely from the White House, but also comes from across numerous agencies in the administration. The emergence of the memo could mark a decided shift in roles for Pence, our sources explain. Since the days immediately following the election, Pence has remained relatively silent compared to President Trump and his legal team.
The revelation that Pence alone can reject allegedly fraudulent Electoral College certificates shifts the spotlight from President Trump and Congressional leaders significantly by putting President Trump’s electoral destiny squarely on Pence’s shoulders.
This memo will likely interfere with Pence’s travel plans, as the vice president recently announced his intention to travel to Israel for two weeks after January 6, when he will preside over a joint session of Congress, according to the Times of Israel. What’s Inside The Memo
Pence can deny Electoral College certificates from states with widespread election fraud.
PART 2
FROM THE MEMO:
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” Therefore, the papers (or “slates”) the states attempted to submit to the President of the Senate and Archivist of the United States are not legal, permissible certificates of votes and lists by Electors as recited in Title 3, U.S.C., sections 9 and 11. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the U.S. Constitution’s Art. 2, S.1, Cl.2 and 14th Amendment, Section 1, Equal Protection Clause in administering their elections, therefore rendering their slates impermissible.
On Dec. 14, the States consummated a fraudulent and Constitutionally deficient certification of their electors as required by 3 USC 7. State and federal authorities have discovered Overwhelming evidence of election fraud and irregularities since Nov. 4, likely rising to the level of criminal election fraud and public corruption. Civil courts dismissed these claims procedurally, rather than on substance.Pence must then notify the Secretary of State in each contested state that they have until January 6 to send a legal Electoral College certificate.
FROM THE MEMO:
The President of the Senate, as the Vice President, statutorily sits on the National Security Council and is privy to information no other individual in the Presidential electoral process has — not the States, not the SCOTUS, not U.S. Congress. This specifically includes any classified evidence and assessments which emanate from EO 13848 regarding foreign interference with US elections. Therefore, the President of the Senate is uniquely qualified to issue judgement on impermissible electors.This is not an option for Pence. If he intends to follow the law from December 23 until January 6, he must instruct these states to remedy their Electoral College certificates.
FROM THE MEMO:
JUDGMENT: All of these factors above inform and contribute to the Vice President’s analysis in deciding that he, as the representative of the Federal Seat of Government did not “receive” a constitutionally permissible slate of electors. For that reason, he is not only duty-bound to request that the States send certificates and lists as required by Title 3, U.S.C., sections 9 and 11 from Electors that were appointed in the manner that the State Legislatures directed as soon as possible, he is also the sole plenary power that has the authority to make this determination.The drafters of the memo also tell National File that, assuming the six contested states – Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada – do not remedy their Electoral College certificates by either selecting them in the Legislature or holding another election, President Trump will prevail in the Electoral College.
As there will no longer be 538 possible electoral votes, with several states having having disqualified themselves by refusing to comply, President Trump will have accrued 232 electors to Joe Biden’s 227.
Do the "one senator" and "one congressman" have to be from the state with which they have an objection?
My hope is high, but my expectations are low. The state legislatures had plenty of time to overturn the fraudulent votes and they did ... nothing.
The only way those (hopefully) millions of Patriots would have any say in this is if they were A) armed to the teeth , and B) ready to attack at the moment Biden is declared the winner by Congress, if not before.
If it WERE an all-out attack by pissed-off Patriots, they’d have to get through whoever was guarding the Capitol, get into the building, and then round up all the (I’m sure by then) fleeing traitorous Congress-people for immediate justice.
But, then what?
Who’s to say that by then the military would be called into the fray? Could angry Patriots take on a military that has likely been ordered to put a stop to this? And what about the Antifa/BLM crowd who’d likely be trying to do their best to destroy the Patriots?
And can someone explain how this keeps Trump in office? It’s not that I don’t want to see it, but I can’t quite figure out how it happens should this scenario go down.
No. It can be any senator, any congressman.
I don’t agree with that “from the Memo” part. There is nothing in the Constitution or subsequent enabling law that gives him this power.
No. It is enforced by the bodies.
By “state” it is meant in the legislation the governor and the state legislator send competing slates-—which has happened. This absolutely does not include “non-certified” slates.
If it did, you would have long ago seen third parties sending in “slates.”
Correct. If 35 electoral votes’ worth of states decertify before Jan. 6; or, if a couple of state decertifications result in NO elector slates being sent up, Biteme would be deprived of the votes necessary and under THAT scenario (less than 270) it would indeed go to the House to vote by delegation.
However, there is no circumstance ever that I could envision even a pro-Trump state denying itself a vote in an election by de-certifying without re-certifying a Trump slate.
You have to read the entire procedure in the code to see that the slate from the Executive of the state is the default in case of a tie. Multiple slates may be sent by a state, e.g., the complicit Governor's slate and any slates from the Legislature, depending on their state election laws.
But in this situation he is NOT the presiding officer in the Senate. He is the presiding officer of the Joint Session, and does NOT go into session with the Senate.
That’s why I keep saying the senate has to be 51.
BTW, though, just a thought on the House “vote by delegation” clause:
Given that so far NO Republican majority legislature (not a single one) has overturned a state Biteme certification, I am not even sure that in the event of a House vote-by-delegation that Trump would win all the R majority delegations. People act like just because they say R next to their names, the legislators are reliable. What evidence so far do we have of that?
The hearings have been off site, meaning that in MI and AZ where hearings were held, they couldn’t even get the majority to hold formal hearings while they were in session.
You haven’t been wrong yet.
But as I stated privately, there’s a path. It’s not the path any of us would want.
Correct, that is, if the governor sends a separate slate (which has indeed happened a couple of times) THEN it is the job of the Congress and Senate in closed session to determine which slate to accept.
Pence has no role, except to say, “There is an objection. The houses will now retire to address the objection.”
This from the same poster who, on election day, assured us of a safe & fair election culminating with a Trump victory.
RIP LS credibility.
Yeah i was disheartened today by Fox news analysts that I trust stating the Jan 6 objections will accomplish nothing.
Actually, I have fantastic credibility.
I predicted Trump with about 320 electoral votes, which is what he got.
He got them. He was defrauded of them, but he got them.
Where we have accurate data, in fact, (FL) my projections were absolutely 100% correct down to the percentages each group would provide for Trump.
Something that I fear Trump’s legal team never fully appreciated: you need to know who your audience, who your “jury” is.
If we had a rock-solid 51 vote Senate Trump majority, I’d say Trump has this.
But at best we have 10 loyalists, 33 RINOs who will jump at “muh popular vote” reasoning to deny Trump the necessary just victory.
Stay focused dude.....and accept responsibility for your wildly incorrect post.
Juan more time...
“This from the same poster who, on election day, assured us of a safe & fair election culminating with a Trump victory.”
Stay focused dude. Just accept that I was right.
Unless you think there was no fraud. In which case you are a goofball dicknipple. I don’t think you think there was no fraud, right?
So I was correct.
Accept it, and move on.
LOL!
Claiming you were correct when you were wildly wrong is typical of leftists unable to grasp reality.
Get some professional help...
Now slither back under your rock - you’ve been exposed as a fraud & purveyor of false information.
Says the slitherer.
You aren’t needed here. You clearly think that there was no fraud.
Go away, CCCP disinfo freep.
I think you’re better served at DU.
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.