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.

[frank ballenger]

Agree.

[Alberta's Child]

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "The time to fix that ended when each state submitted their certified electors to Congress."
No. That is when the election should be questioned. which it did. The only time the vote could've taken place was on Jan 6 which they did.

Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given."
This was in reference to the new covid rules in each state associated with the elections. Before the vote took place the "attack" happened. Pence was required to hold the vote for a legal investigate the who was at fault with the attack. Was it a false flag or was it MAGA? Given how the doors where opened. A real investigation wouldn't have taken long.

What Pence did was allow the congress to be lied to that it was MAGA that created the coup d’état. There was no bases for that statement and only then did the vote take place. Which means that vote wasn't legal.

IF the vote went against them they could also use the argument that only 11 members of each party was on the floor over the covid rules sent by the speaker of the house. not enough for a quorum. Which Pence allowed her to take charge of the proceedings without a dispute.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Please cite them all here — by statute, code, chapter, etc."
Why? As you said it was a done deal. you don't care.
If there is a trail I would be happy to do it. More then willing. i would love to see that trial.

[Alberta's Child]

If I lived in Canada, you might have a point. LOL.

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.

First of all, there was no presidential election in 1962. Even Canadians know VP Nixon left office in January 1961. I assume you're referring to the election of 1960.

Secondly, the important point you raised involved dual slates of electors. That's exactly what the certification process in Congress is supposed to address. There were no slates of multiple electors submitted to Congress after the 2020 election.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"certified" what does that word mean to you?
US code: "The president of the Senate must open all the "certificates" and "papers purporting to be certificates"
purporting --
to claim (to be a certain thing, etc) by manner or appearance, esp falsely

I do look information. Do you?

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about Election Day for a presidential election, and nothing about voting rules in each state. In fact, the only thing the Constitution says is that the electors are to be selected for each state in the manner determined by each state legislature.

In other words, there isn't even a requirement for states to let people vote in presidential elections.

The rest of your post is borderline incoherent. Pence was required to hold a vote for a legal investigation over the "attack?" Where does it say that?

What Pence did was allow the congress to be lied to that it was MAGA that created the coup d’état.

What does this have to do with certifying a presidential election?

IF the vote went against them they could also use the argument that only 11 members of each party was on the floor over the covid rules sent by the speaker of the house. not enough for a quorum.

What? Only 11 members of each party voted on January 6th?

[Alberta's Child]

US code: "The president of the Senate must open all the "certificates" and "papers purporting to be certificates"

How does this related to January 6th? Did anyone submit "papers purporting to be certificates" to Congress, in addition to the actual certificates?

[mass55th]

"Read the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

You mean the U.S. Constitution that Democrats say is a "living document", whose words they twist and turn to suit their needs whenever they choose, and get away with it? Heaven forbid that a GOP elitist question anything like Democrats do. He could have tried to reject those electors from the States where fraud was heavily suspected. If you can reject electors via a vote in Congress, which both sides have done in previous elections, Pence had the right to reject those questionable electors, and send them back to the States, even if, in the end it failed. You don't know the outcome of something unless you at least try. Pence is a self-serving prig.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"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"

It's not in the constitution. it's under criminal law. As there was a coup d’état that was accomplished. It was a clear False flag that was successful.
Pence was required to hold the vote for a legal investigation.
He also allowed congress to be lied to on who where the attackers.

[Big Red Badger]

Yuppers...
Are we on the trail of a Good HumanBeing?

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m no fan of Mike Pence, but I would find no fault with him over his role in the process related to the January 6th election certification vote in 2021.

Well I feel differently. I believe backstabbing coward bitches should be ostracized. The world is better off without weak pussified pansies.

[DiogenesLamp]

Under the U.S. Constitution he had one job to do on January 6th. He did it.

He absolutely *DID NOT DO HIS JOB*!!!!

The people of 1787 were not terrified little cowards. Men had honor, and not a one of them would have put up with the absolute illegal "certification."

I know you don't think he had the power to stop it, and you are wrong about that, but what he absolutely had the power to do was to say:

"I shall not participate in this corrupt farce!!!!"

That was the very smallest aspect of his responsibility, and he failed.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Stop spreading your asinine "interpretation" of constitutional powers.

The only people that believe the President of the Senate has no more power than a rubber stamp, are idiots and liars.

[DiogenesLamp]

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 lets just say for the sake of argument that this is correct. (Which it absolutely is not.)

Suppose Pence did it anyway? Would he be punished?

Would it throw the nation into a constitutional crises?

I said at the time, and further hindsight has only confirmed my impression, that a constitutional crises would have been a far better outcome than that corrupt, stupid, evil piece of sh*t being put into power.

What would have been the downside of Pence acting like an actual man instead of a cowardly bitch?

Uproar among the media liars? GOOD!!!!

The government thrown in disarray? An IMPROVEMENT over what we have now. (Weaponized Nazi government.)

We just went through *CORRUPT* elections, and you don't think any feathers should have been ruffled?

What is wrong with you?

[DiogenesLamp]

Like what?

At the very least, denounce the whole thing as corrupt and walk out.

At the most, refuse to accept the corrupt election results and throw the thing into the House of Representatives.

What you advocate was the very worst possible outcome. A corrupt piece of sh*t being put into power who then weaponized the government against us and everything good in the world.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, 'Did anyone submit "papers purporting to be certificates" to Congress, in addition to the actual certificates?"
They where required by US code to do so. If they didn't they broke that US code to.

asked, "What? Only 11 members of each party voted on January 6th?"

11 members of each party was allowed on the floor on Jan 6 which by US code they must be present. What they did was bring one person up at a time to vote. They must all be present to vote. It's a technicality which if the vote didn't go their way they wouldn't have had enough for a quorum.

A point of order was given to contents this rule.
Pence didn't "entertain" point of order by relabeling it an objection. Which Objections where not allowed under a join session of congress.

This relabeling a point of order to an objection thereby sealing Trump loss of the election. This proves in my mind Pence was in on it.
Jan 6
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-167/issue-4/house-section/article/H76-4

[Vaduz]

Democrats lick Pence’s ear and whispers you can beat Trump we have your back.

He takes the bait 2024 they give him a new t-shirt CHUMP.

[poinq]

If you start out saying there is something wrong with elections. And you say crime needs to be addressed and schools need to listen to parents, you will win the republican vote. If you go old school and say business is important and lower taxes and elections are fair we just need to work harder, you will lose the republican vote in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin republican voters don’t trust republican leaders. They are trying to separate out the RINOs from the real. And they will vote for Johnson while not voting for others.

[Albion Wilde]

Gotsta keep up the old homestead: