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 ...
It's not theater! You have to have a process for bringing the certificates together for the counting. Just because you don't give the person power to nullify it all doesn't it unimportant.
I'm trying to remain polite here, but your refusal to give up on wordplay is getting really, really, and quite really ridiculous. Don't feel bad. It merely happens by chance that I am better situated to undertand this matter more clearly than whoever sold you this story in the first place. But you would do well to turn away from that individual's commentary from now on.
Ot’s all Dan Quayle’s fault.... Oh please this is pathetic.
Benedict Pence betrayed President Trump and everyone knows it.
A "process" which is nothing more than a "ritual" is indeed "theater."
It's all for show. It serves no other purpose than for show. They could put a counting machine up there for all the difference it would make to you.
I'm trying to remain polite here, but your refusal to give up on wordplay is getting really, really, and quite really ridiculous.
Rush Limbaugh used to say "Words mean things." They have precise meaning, and sometimes an enormous amount of difference hangs on the meaning.
Don't feel bad. It merely happens by chance that I am better situated to undertand this matter more clearly than whoever sold you this story in the first place.
This is referred to as "patronizing."
You think the founders and the state legislators which voted to ratify the constitution were all agreeing to a formality in designating the "President of the Senate" to perform this task, and I don't.
I think that it, like every other office specified in the Constitution, was expected to use discretion.
It is not a formality.
Senate is where the votes are counted. VP happens to be the one who presides over the Senate, so what do you want, the maintenance man to be the one to open the certificates before you're convinced it's procedural?
Yeah patronizing sometimes is called for. And Rush Limbaugh would have done it in this case. No matter what you say he said about words, he had much sense to support the q-ooky view that procedure is mere "show".
Rush would never support such a view.
Again, the discretion here being: Do I go with the foulard or the striped tie, do I inhale or exhale, as I open the certificates.
Everything in context.
You're incorrigible particularly when bringing in words that are not the ones I am using.
If it is not subject to discretionary change, how is it different?
And Rush Limbaugh would have done it in this case. No matter what you say he said about words, he had much sense to support the q-ooky view that procedure is mere "show".
You have yet to explain to me in a comprehensive manner how a "process" which cannot be changed, is not a mere "show."
Under your understanding it's a show. It's nothing but a show.
That is not a discretion involving the process. The US Constitution does not deal in trivialities.
It also doesn't do theatrics.
In context of this discussion, the words I have been using are synonyms. You just don't like my choices of synonyms because they too accurately describe the difference between your view and mine.
Formality is in fact your argument, but you don't want it portrayed in language that trivializes it as pomp.
But it is pomp, and it deserves to be trivialized because it serves no purpose other than kabuki theater.
It's a show.
I don't believe the Constitution intended for it to be a show. They intended for it to be a serious matter with serious consequences.
If they are in fact “synonyms” with my words, then why change them? Let’s stick to my words for me, your words for you.
Apologetics. Excuses.
He could have chosen to be a man and tested the waters as to what actually would have happened had he refused to be a rubber stamp for a communist coup.
You know who was “stuck” living under King George? The founding fathers, they unstuck themselves.
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.