Posted on 01/07/2021 1:49:56 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
You consider "several dead people" to be sufficient evidence to declare an entire election invalid? I think you and I have different standards for what we would consider good evidence.
That gave all the allegations of voter fraud instant credibility.
It has to be a lot more than "several." It has to be up in the tens of thousands. If it can't span the margin of victory, it isn't enough to try to overturn the result.
Now it's my understanding they eventually identified enough fraudulent votes (something like 432,000 or so) to make a credible charge of election fraud, but it took them awhile.
Subsequent disputes need not be exact replays of Precedents. The seating of electors was disputed by members of the state legislature, and possibly a majority, though I no longer remember for sure.
They had no "official" authority because the governor would not call them into a special session, but it was still a dispute none the less.
Mike = Mudd. Mudd Pence. YUP your name is Mudd. Enjoy the 16 corporate boards your turncoat a$$ will be sitting on. BTW don’t bother showing up in Indiana where we will spit on your shoes.
Dude -- YOU are the one who cited "precedent" in your prior post.
It was sufficient evidence to call into question every single ballot that was received by mail -- especially those that were received without items that were required by law like a return address, matching signature, etc.
Pence was always a Bush League Republican, he was part of the Boehner, Ryan, Cantor GOP House leadership.
Trump expected Pence to honor the request of individual state assembly representatives that pleaded for 10 days to investigate fraud and re-certify their electors. Which could be done prior to Jan 20. And is a perfectly reasonable request that left Pence with clean hands.
IF anything, support for Trump will increase.
Trump didn’t make Pence a target. This is what Trump said of Pence, eight minutes into the speech. He mentioned him only one other time, again hoping Pence would do the right thing. A step that Pence hadn’t even approached in the timeline of the joint session.
” I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do. This is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution, and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The States got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice-President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.
Donald Trump: (09:08)
I just spoke to Mike. I said, “Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage...”
Why would you think he’s interested? He knows he’s not morally or mentally equipped to be President.
From your reply 129: "It's my understanding that their state constitution requires the governor to call them into session, and if he refuses to do so, they have no legal power as a legislature." I posted quotes saying that in three of those states the legislature can, in fact, request a special session and the governor is required to call it. In Georgia if the governor refuses then the legislature meets in special session anyway. Perhaps if you had done your homework?
Also I reject your claim that the extremely difficult standards of reaching a 2/3rds or 3/5ths majority is a reasonable method of addressing this issue. It isn't. It's d@mn hard to get a 2/3rds or 3/5ths majority at the best of times.
I don't care if you reject it or not, the ability for the legislature to call the special session is there, enshrined in the state constitutions. Had you done some research before posting you would have known that.
This is like saying if you don't like the latest ridiculous federal court overreach, you should simply pass a constitutional amendment to over turn it.
Let's take a more recent scenario - presidential vetoes. Are you saying that requiring a two-thirds majority to override a veto is an unreasonable restriction? And that perhaps a veto should be overridden by a 40 percent vote? Or a four percent vote?
The powers are there, be it veto override or special legislative session. It's not supposed to be easy since neither action should be done on a whim. Placing super majorities ensures the support is there to deal with the crisis requiring the session.
Only works if you have objective courts intent on justice.
Your contempt for the judiciary is once again recognized. But we'll never know whether you speak from knowledge or just bigotry because none of these fraud cases were ever taken to court for trial. Maybe if you tried that route...?
Makes as much sense as having the governor simply pass laws.
Or passing laws when only a minority of the legislature votes yes? Would you have that as well?
Laws are not broken just because you and I say they were. Guilt or innocence is established by trial.
He counts the electors. Since we have already had it demonstrated to us in five different states that the person who "counts" the ballots gets to decide what ballots to count and what ballots to reject, it would have been consistent to reject "bad" electors and count "good" electors.
Actually it's the House and Senate who count the electors. Two tellers from the House and two from the Senate, one from each party. Pence announces the result. Since it's the House and Senate who actually count then it makes sense that the House and Senate rule on whether they are valid or not. Hence the ability to challenge the results and vote on rejecting them. And I would point out that only a majority is needed to reject the electors. Is that too high a bar for you in this case as well?
Again, your contempt for the judiciary is duly noted.
I guess you have an opinion on this that differs greatly from the majority of people with whom i've discussed "the courts" over the years.
Ya think?
I’m old enough to remember Pence yelling “we are going to HOLD THE LINE.” Like this Monday night.
When tidbits of information begin to slowly leak to give us the true picture of men such as these; just what will we find to the name attached to Mr. Pence? Oh yes, the truth shall be known. They are unable to stop our knowing the truth. Furious runs in both directions - you flea bag traitor.
Pence claimed he had to be a Boy Scout after he swore an oath to defend the Constitution, while domestic enemies were urinating and defecating all over it. You’re good with that..
Oh yes Brother- he sure is, that Louisville Gobbler Man. And in the opinion of many of his long time acquaintances, he may be a closet lots of other things. Verrry close friend of Little Johnny Roberts, the little fella in the black MUMU and the cheap toupe.
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.