Pence defends not conceding 2020 election before Jan. 6

The Hill ^ | 07/12/2023 | Jared Gans

[ChicagoConservative27]

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday defended not conceding the 2020 presidential election until after Congress certified Electoral College the results in January 2021, pointing to the Trump campaign’s ongoing lawsuits challenging the results.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Pence in an interview on Tuesday about why he did not publicly concede the election in mid-December, after the members of the Electoral College had cast their votes.

Pence said he wanted to be “respectful” of the process, as “a lot” of the lawsuits that the campaign filed in the key states that clinched President Biden’s victory were still active in the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, when Pence presided over the session of Congress to read the votes and the Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters.

[Alberta's Child]

The Congressional certification of the election results is merely a formality -- except in cases where conflicting slates of electors are submitted to Congress by one or more states. That simply wasn't the case in 2020.

[glennaro]

BIG MAN .... long after the crisis is over. What a disgrace.

[Vermont Lt]

Wow. Someone said something reasonable to the media. And yet, the Trump supporters want none of it. They expected the man to do something there was no authority or precedence to do.

Trump had lousy lawyers. Trump expected the DOJ to do his bidding, which he was told many times wasn’t going to happen.

If Trump had conceded and focused on his record for the last month or so…he would win by the largest margin in history.

But yeah…get mad at Pence. That’s productive.

[Alberta's Child]

Fine -- the election was totally rigged.

The time to fix that ended when each state submitted their certified electors to Congress. This statement from Sen. Tom Cotton captures the whole thing well -- especially the highlighted paragraph:

JANUARY 03, 2021

Cotton Statement on Joint Session of Congress

I share the concerns of many Arkansans about irregularities in the presidential election, especially in states that rushed through election-law changes to relax standards for voting-by-mail. I also share their disappointment with the election results. I therefore support a commission to study the last election and propose reforms to protect the integrity of our elections. And after Republicans win in Georgia, the Senate should also hold more hearings on these matters. All Americans deserve to have confidence in the elections that undergird our free government.

Nevertheless, the Founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states -- not Congress. They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College -- not Congress. And they entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts -- not Congress. Under the Constitution and federal law, Congress’s power is limited to counting electoral votes submitted by the states.

If Congress purported to overturn the results of the Electoral College, it would not only exceed that power, but also establish unwise precedents. First, Congress would take away the power to choose the president from the people, which would essentially end presidential elections and place that power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress. Second, Congress would imperil the Electoral College, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections. Democrats could achieve their longstanding goal of eliminating the Electoral College in effect by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect. Third, Congress would take another big step toward federalizing election law, another longstanding Democratic priority that Republicans have consistently opposed.

Thus, I will not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes on January 6. I’m grateful for what the president accomplished over the past four years, which is why I campaigned vigorously for his reelection. But objecting to certified electoral votes won’t give him a second term -- it will only embolden those Democrats who want to erode further our system of constitutional government.

[rlmorel]

He should wear this albatross around his neck for the rest of his life.

Like the Rime of The Ancient Mariner, he will be compelled by his guilt to constantly explain his actions in the hope that explaining it will make it go away, but it won’t.

I hope it tortures him for the rest of his life.

[Big Red Badger]

Supposedly he was to freeze the process until an accounting of the the processes was accomplished.

[frank ballenger]

I am honored to have a rebuttal from you, as usual for you based on solid facts (not always true of others here).

True, not the conventional or optimal way to stop fraud and the states should have taken control as you said. So actually you are right and I was wrong.

But someday we may be sitting in the Chinese style re-education work camps recalling how we lost America but at least we didn’t fail to follow the strict protocols along with way. The bad guys got all the rights.

[StAnDeliver]

"In Wisconsin, Pence supported a women who had a ten point lead as governor in the primary. A few weeks later she lost. Her opponent simply distributed a picture of her shaking hands with Pence and she lost badly."

The GOP has not had a female primary candidate for Governor of Wisconsin in this century.

[Big Red Badger]

Yuppers!
Pence Dropping Trou would have
Been a Start of SOMETHING!

[SamuraiScot]

"I will kowtow to the deep state. You have my word.”

Once upon a time as Governor of Indiana, Pence was a very public supporter of Pat Buchanan and Buchanan's movement for a halt on illegal immigration from s**t-holes into America.

[mass55th]

"The Vice President of the United States has no authority to do what many Freepers are insisting Pence should have done on January 6th."

And you know that because????

He had "no authority" according to the Washington establishment. It would have been better to have tried and lost, than never to have tried at all. What did he have to lose? What was it going to cost him to test the system...push the envelope? A book deal? His standing with the GOP Elite? The bottom line is, that Pence was more worried about his political future than he was of anything else on January 6th. He chose to take the easy way out for himself.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Pence broke 4 laws that i know about on Jan 6:
1. Didn't "entertain" point of order by relabeling it an objection.
2. Jan 3 he was voted out the head of the preceding. It was given to the speaker of the house.
They couldn't simply vote him out legally. Though he didn't even raise an objection. Dereliction of duty.
3. He was required to hold the count until a proper investigation into the coup d’état IE: If it was an attack or False flag. Either way it was an attempted coup d’état which required a hold on the count.
4. He texted minutes before the "attack" that he was a coward wouldn't do it

[mass55th]

"Did he honestly believe the vote fraud ballot counting was acceptable? Or possibly wasn’t fraud?"

All of those Republican assholes in Congress who voted to accept Biden's electors, sanctioned unlimited voter fraud on January 6th. They made it the law of the land. That includes people like Rand Paul and Marsha Blackburn who initially planned to reject Biden's electors, but then came back after the break, turned chicken, and voted to accept them. I have no respect for any of them, and I will never forgive, or forget.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Pence broke so many laws and rules on Jan 6 there is no way it was a mistake. he was working with the coup d’état

[Alberta's Child]

I appreciate your honesty there. "Supposedly" is a huge hedge.

I have searched high and low, and I cannot find anything in Federal law or the U.S. Constitution that allows the Vice President of the United States to "freeze" a presidential election process.

A lot of what we've seen posted here on FR since January 2021 has been nothing more than wishful thinking.

[erkelly]

Yeah, that’s because you live in Canada and know nothing about the US Constitution although for some inexplicable reason you think you do.

The Vice President is not the Master of Ceremonies over the US Federal elections. His duty is to preside over the election(s) and to certify they are honest and without fraud. Pence failed in this duty.

He simply needed to do as then Vice President Nixon did in 1962 when presented with dual slates of electors — send the issue back to the state (in 1962 it was the state of Hawaii) and let the legislature determine which was the correct slate.

Because of the question of fraud, it was Pence’s constitutional duty to stop the process and correct the errors.

But since you are in Canada, and not in the US, it doesn’t matter what you think, it is just too bad you don’t take the time to find out what the constitution actually says so you don’t post your usual nonsense.

[Big Red Badger]

Shu mani tu Tonka oh wachi

[Alberta's Child]

Read the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's written there in plain language, regardless of whatever some hack with a political agenda says.

There is a very clear process laid out there:

1. The state electoral votes are signed and certified.
2. The certified votes are sealed and transmitted to "the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate" (this is the Vice President).
3. The President of the Senate, "in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," opens all the certificates.
4. "The votes shall then be counted."
5. The person with the greatest number of electoral votes for President is the President-elect.

There's no leeway in here for the Vice President -- or anyone else -- to "reject" electoral votes, or "suspend" the counting of electoral votes, or "send back electoral votes for clarification," or any of the other nonsense I've seen proposed here on FR since then.

[Alberta's Child]

Fair enough. But this has nothing to do with Mike Pence. I hold the legislatures and governors of those states where election processes were altered in the utmost contempt.

[Alberta's Child]

Please cite them all here — by statute, code, chapter, etc.