Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pence May Reject Biden’s Fraudulent Electors
https://populist.press ^ | 12.22.2020 | populist.press

Posted on 12/22/2020 2:50:23 PM PST by rxsid

Pence May Reject Biden’s Fraudulent Electors

Firebrand and freedom fighter Boris Epshteyn, a Trump 2020 adviser, is working overtime through the holidays to legally prove election fraud and rightfully overturn the results, namely, in Arizona.

Epshteyn, a regular guest on Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” said during his latest appearance on the number one political podcast in the country, that Vice President Mike Pence may reject the slate of electors he finds fraudulent during a joint session of Congress on January 6.

Boris was responding to a question about how President Trump can still prevail.

“So when the time comes on January 6…” the Vice President can count the “correct electors…the electors based on the most legal votes,” Epshteyn said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. “Let not forget that a week ago today, the Trump electors were sent to Congress…along with the Biden electors,” he continued. Epshteyn later said the Trump team is prepared to fight well past January 6 if Congress cannot certify a winner.

This is significant since Vice President Mike Pence is tasked with reading each states’ electors into the official record during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6.

Some legal scholars have argued that where there are disputes over electors, the vice president has the legal authority to read into the record only that slate of electors which he believes is correct.

There’s discrepancy between legal scholars who say the vice president has no such power and may only read the slate of electors transmitted to the Congress by state officials. The answer to who wields this power or not falls within the open question of law that must be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

SCOTUS has never ruled on this issue in history. However, if Pence rejects some of Joe Biden’s electors, this could be the first time in history the highest court in the nation resolves this question.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2020; 4thegullibles; arizona; bannon; biden; borisepshteyn; delusion; delusional; dontgiveup; election; electionfraud; elections; electoralcollege; electors; epshteyn; georgia; michigan; nevada; nevergivein; nosurrender; notthisagain; nowhiteflag; pence; pennsylvannia; stevebannon; trump; votefraud; votegate; warroom; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-234 next last
To: philippa
He can reject electors that he believes are illegal.

Not legally he can't.

141 posted on 12/22/2020 4:16:29 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Yet.

Well if any of them do so then you can you say you told be so.

142 posted on 12/22/2020 4:17:05 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

It was just pointed out the swamp buried a provision in the Covid bill to preclude that.


143 posted on 12/22/2020 4:17:10 PM PST by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

State legislature...


144 posted on 12/22/2020 4:17:35 PM PST by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
"Yes - that point (a state COULD send more than 1 slate of certified electors) is indeed correct..

That said, no state is going to do that barring a totally unforseen miracle."

And as I've stated here repeated, it's a matter of will.

If everyone surrenders, the legislatures will naturally fold as well.

There are 2 things that elected politicians respond to. 1. Money. 2. Public pressure, especially from their constituents.

If they feel enough public pressure from their constituents, it will happen.

There have been several state hearings on the issue of fraud. Think those hearings would happen without public pressure?

There have been legislatures who have said they will continue to fight. Think they would go there without public pressure?

People looking for 100% certainties need to gain some resolve.

145 posted on 12/22/2020 4:22:22 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

looking around to see if valid

chuck callesto (blue check marked) says it is included
“nullifies the presidents use of the Insurrection Act”

I am lazy so do your own research as I do not claim this is true..just put stuff out there for people who are interested

I dont want to read this bill..it infuriates me


146 posted on 12/22/2020 4:23:09 PM PST by RummyChick (I BLAME KUSHNER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
It was just pointed out the swamp buried a provision in the Covid bill to preclude that.

Yeah? Another reason to VETO that bill full of pork.

147 posted on 12/22/2020 4:23:45 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (I will not rest until the American People have the honest vote count they deserve. DJT 11-07-20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: chopperk
VP PENCE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO REJECT THESE VOTES, ITS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL JOB...

In an extra-constitutional environment VP Pence has every duty to disrupt this fraud. If I was he, I wouldn't even enter the chamber until this fraud is addressed. What are they going to do? Impeach him? Stop the steal!

148 posted on 12/22/2020 4:24:38 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (If your home doesn't reek of Hoppe's, you ain't paying attention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: philippa

This!!!! Eliminate any electoral votes from said States. Not sure how many this eliminates, but it should provide President Trump with a clear majority of the remaining electors.


149 posted on 12/22/2020 4:26:33 PM PST by gundog ( Hail to the Chief, bitches!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
How many times does it have to be pointed out that Pence does not have the authority to choose which electors he counts.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you, that the VP has no duty to perpetrate a fraud?

150 posted on 12/22/2020 4:27:47 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (If your home doesn't reek of Hoppe's, you ain't paying attention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

lin wood retweeting insurrection covid claim but I dont trust his sourcing..he is still trying to claim that Chief Justice flew to Epstein Island and we easily debunked that here


151 posted on 12/22/2020 4:28:04 PM PST by RummyChick (I BLAME KUSHNER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you, that the VP has no duty to perpetrate a fraud?

Then don't show up and let Grassley run the count on January 6th.

152 posted on 12/22/2020 4:29:27 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer; RummyChick
Framers believed in dividing power. The VP was long considered the least powerful elected office; framers might have thought a person aspiring only to that low office a fair choice to resolve such controversy.

The Constitution employs checks and balances, but doesn't fully embrace separation of powers, e.g., the Senate tries impeachment and the House prosecutes them. VPOTUS is a most unusual office. Modern statutes consider him to be a part of the Executive branch of government, but what constitutional powers are granted to him are legislative, (presiding over the Senate and breaking ties), and presiding and counting the electoral votes, which could be interpreted as the judicial power to decide issues of fraud. If VPOTUS has the power to ignore fraudulent electoral votes, it may not be reviewable in the federal courts due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or by Congress. It is a political issue of the kind that courts are apt to abstain from deciding, notwithstanding Bush v. Gore, and if SCOTUS were forced to finally address the issue, they may well agree that Biden's electors were unlawfully appointed, or fraudulent .
153 posted on 12/22/2020 4:30:48 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: philippa

“He can reject electors that he believes are illegal.”

In defiance of the Constitution which says he *shall* open all envelopes containing elector slates?
Isn’t he pledged to defend the Constitution?

As for you, you’re not pledged to defend our Constitution and , I assume, you’re just speaking in heat and haste.


154 posted on 12/22/2020 4:31:33 PM PST by mrsmith (US MEDIA: " Every 'White' cop is a criminal! And all the 'non-white' criminals saints!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Sorry to have provided an alternate point of view. I will be more careful in future.
I admit to a visceral dislike of Cornell interpretations based on Cornell’s effect on my eldest son.


155 posted on 12/22/2020 4:33:12 PM PST by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance. Nemo me impune lacessit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

“Ugh. Grasping at straws.”

Yep. And one day one straw is going to break the Constitution.


156 posted on 12/22/2020 4:34:03 PM PST by mrsmith (US MEDIA: " Every 'White' cop is a criminal! And all the 'non-white' criminals saints!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; FreeReign

The event on January 6th in congress is NOT in a court of law. Therefore legal or not is irrelevant according to constitution. The framers were smart to SPECIFICALLY leave courts out of the event on January 6th.

The framers of constitution left the final say to the state legislatures in choosing electors.


157 posted on 12/22/2020 4:36:15 PM PST by entropy12 (Those who vote decide nothing, those who count votes decide everything--Joseph Stalin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Lin wood’s tweet refers to Chuck Callesto’s tweet that the there would be changes to the insurrection act (I believe Congress would have to approve it beyond 14 days for an earlier June 2020 defense bill).


158 posted on 12/22/2020 4:36:34 PM PST by convoter2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
Sorry to have provided an alternate point of view. I will be more careful in future.

I grant you that suspicion of Cornell's conclusions or Cornell's analysis may be warranted, depending on the circumstances. But the law is the law, and regardless of Cornell's biases I have no reason to believe that they did not post the law accurately word for word. And the powers and duties of the Senate and the House are clearly stated.

159 posted on 12/22/2020 4:37:03 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
Sorry to have provided an alternate point of view. I will be more careful in future.

I grant you that suspicion of Cornell's conclusions or Cornell's analysis may be warranted, depending on the circumstances. But the law is the law, and regardless of Cornell's biases I have no reason to believe that they did not post the law accurately word for word. And the powers and duties of the Senate and the House are clearly stated.

160 posted on 12/22/2020 4:37:03 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-234 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson