Posted on 09/20/2021 6:57:25 AM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
While Mike Pence was lauded by Democrats — and widely criticized by the president and the Republican base — for his refusal to overturn the results of the election won by Joe Biden in 2020, it turns out that a different vice president may have been responsible for the decision.
In the upcoming book Peril, Robert Costa and Bob Woodward write that then-Vice President Pence reached out to 74-year-old Dan Quayle — who served as vice president from 1989 to 1993 under President George H. W. Bush — in the waning days of the Trump presidency.
"Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do," Costa and Woodward write, suggesting that Pence was looking for a way to acquiesce to Donald Trump's demands that he reject the electoral votes legally-cast in Biden's favor.
According to the book, Quayle quickly put the kibosh on any effort to overturn the election, telling Pence: "Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away."
When Pence "pressed again," the authors write, he did so by explaining that he was under pressure from Trump. (A spokesman for Pence did not respond to a request for comment on Peril.)
"You don't know the position I'm in," he told Quayle, according to the authors, to which Quayle responded: "I do know the position you're in. I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian [who issues rulings about congressional authority]. That's all you do. You have no power.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Pence could not do it. I spotted the typo and debated whether to correct it but then I figured nobody would be dumb enough to read that into it. Once again you proved me wrong.
:)
I am perfectly willing to believe you finally got something right by accident.
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.
It happened more recently than that. Hubert Humphrey didn't show for the 1972 count - claimed he had a funeral to attend, probably the one for his political future - and the President-Pro-Temp oversaw the count.
You do believe what you want to believe, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Surprise, surprise. </sarcasm>
Well there you go. ONE audit. And a friend of a friend of a friend tells you there is MASSIVE FRAUD!!! Okay. Where is it? When is it coming out? We’ve been waiting for months.
Hardly. I used to believe that the Southern states started the war over slavery, and that Lincoln was a hero for defeating them and abolishing slavery.
Then I found out all that was wrong and so I changed my mind.
As John Maynard Keynes said:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
Yes, I thought it had happened recently. I’m sure it has happened a lot. The Vice President did not even have an official residence in Washington until 1966, and before the 20th Amendment went into effect the joint session was in February. A losing Vice President would likely have left town to begin the long trip home by then.
The announcement I saw was that it's coming out this Friday, but initial reports have already emerged.
But you don't get to just walk away from your "audit after audit" claim. What the h3ll were you talking about with "audit after audit"? Where did you get the idea that there has been more than one audit?
Beyond the one actual audit, there has been massive amounts of evidence that demonstrated fraud in Georgia, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in Nevada, and so forth.
And you somehow missed all of that? Do you deliberately ignore threads where they are presenting the evidence of what happened? Did you miss the video of those women pulling out fake ballots from under a table and then running the same stack of ballots through the machine over and over again?
I think most of them have been man enough to do their duty. Nixon did it in 1961. Gore did it in 2001. But there haven't been a lot of times where a sitting VP ran for president, lost, and had to oversee his opponent's vote total.
Let’s try to get to the bottom of this.
The “Presidential election” was not before Congress on January 6, 2021. There are no “Presidential elections” in the Constitution.
What was before Congress was the result of an election which took place on December 14, 2020, namely, the casting of votes by Electors who were appointed by 50 State Legislatures, plus 3 who were appointed by Congress.
Congress was charged with opening and counting those 1076 votes (538 for President, 538 for Vice President) in open, public session as specified in the Constitution.
The appointment of those Electors was and is a reserved power of 50 State Legislatures (and, since 1960, of the 3 Electors Congress granted itself). This is not subject to review by Congress, nor by the Courts, AS LONG AS THE APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE IN THE STATES.
There have been circumstances where two sets of Electors have been sent to Congress (1876) or could have been (2000), in which case the Special Joint Session assembled per the Constitution to do the counting must adjudicate the matter.
After 1876, Congress claimed the power to CHALLENGE a slate of Electors, as set forth in the Electoral Vote Count Act, under which a single representative and a single Senator can halt the count and cause the body to vote on accepting or
rejecting all or some of a State’s appointed Electors. In 2000, the US Supreme Court claimed authority (which they do not have) to intervene in the process.
But it has never been the case that Congress OR the USSC has claimed the right to question or to investigate the METHOD used by a State Legislature in its power of appointment of Electors. Congress counts (and thereby certifies) ELECTORAL votes, not the means by which they came into their hands for counting.
The national government already has too much unauthorized power over this process (debate commissions, campaign finance laws, etc, etc) when they should have none - since it is their replacement that is at issue.
Odd that the Founders left ALL the power over this process in the hands of State Legislatures, huh? Why do you suppose they did that?
Anyway - on January 6, 2021, 1076 Electoral votes were delivered by the Secretary of State to the President of the Senate for a public count. It is my understanding that several objections were in order, were voted on by the body, and were rejected.
The votes were counted, Biden and Harris were elected, and since no State Legislature objected before December 14, before January 6, before January 20; and because no State Legislature has objected TO THIS VERY DAY - Biden and Harris are elected, and that as they say, is that.
Whether or not any random FReeper "missed all that" is irrelevant, since Electors for President and Vice President, who do the actual choosing, are not appointed by the Free Republic forum (yet).
They are appointed by State Legislatures, NOT ONE OF WHICH OBJECTED TO THEIR APPOINTMENTS, not before December 14, not before January 6, not before January 20, and not to this very day.
THAT is your problem. The people with the authority to govern the ACTUAL Presidential election have made their choice, and you don't like it.
I should have wrote “departing” rather than “losing.” The majority of Vice Presidents during this period served only one term. A lame duck Vice President who was leaving office in March very possibly would have viewed presiding over the joint session as an anticlimactic, ceremonial task that was not sufficiently important to keep him in Washington in an age when he couldn’t simply hop on a plane home.
How could you have missed all the articles showing the different types of swing state fraud which occurred in the 2020 election process?
******************
Who’s arguing there was no fraud? Not me. Just because we think there was fraud, or Pence feels there was fraud where is the legal avenue for him to not certify the electors? Was there any court case decided in our favor for him to present that as legal reasoning?
How could you have missed all the articles showing the different types of swing state fraud which occurred in the 2020 election process?
******************
Who’s arguing there was no fraud? Not me. Just because we think there was fraud, or Pence feels there was fraud where is the legal avenue for him to not certify the electors? Was there any court case decided in our favor for him to present that as legal reasoning?
Fine. You first show me where the word “rifle” appears in this amendment
****************
What? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
You’re the one arguing the 12th amendment gives Vice President Pence the ability to (put whatever word you want here) the election.
Indeed
I had more hair
Well there's no criterion indicated for such discretion, and the section sure reads like a duty rather than a power.
I do sort of like that argument though.
BS.
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.