Replies

“That clearly gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists,” said Cobb, who added that a joint declaration by both chambers of Congress could on those grounds block Trump from being able to regain the White House.

Ty Cobb may have gone over to the dark side. Is there any credible evidence that there was an "insurrection?"

What evidence is there that Trump tried to "overturn" the election? He wanted his VP to use his authority to delay the vote to allow time to resolve irregularities in the selection of electoral representatives. Some states had two sets of electoral representatives. Which set was valid?

The Democrats are working on legislation to prevent such an option for the VP. Why are they doing that?

What is Ty Cobb's motive to outright lie and misrepresent what occurred on January 6th?

What form has Ty's "30 pieces of silver" taken?

Some states had two sets of electoral representatives. Which set was valid?

This was an interesting side story that gets more play than it deserves. The GOP electors convened in some states that Biden “won” and voted for the Trump/Pence ticket. This was a formality that was needed in case any of the legal challenges succeeded in those states, it would have been necessary to have a GOP slate of electors in place that had been certified on the exact day required by law.

None of those GOP slates of electors were ever submitted to Congress for the January 6th joint session.

The Democrats are working on legislation to prevent such an option for the VP. Why are they doing that?

Because it’s ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the VP has the unilateral authority to disrupt the Congressional certification process in a presidential election. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 that is the basis of the procedure in Congress to certify a presidential election is almost certainly unconstitutional because it effectively gives Congress the power to override the states in certifying the presidential electors.

The Democrats are working on legislation to prevent such an option for the VP.

Constitutional? The process is set forth in the constitution. We can argue about what it means, and a feckelss VP like Pence can argue it means nothing and that the VP is just there as a figurehead and maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't. But if the dems don't like the words in the constitution, then they can change them if they can get 2/3 of the house and senate to go along, along with 3/4ths of the states.

He’s insane. He’s talking about insurrection but he’s suggesting the Congress should ban a presidential candidate.

And what is with lawyers being allowed to speak against the interests of a former client?