For the lawyers -- the legal justification to declare Trump the winner in the last election

I don't understand the legalese, but supposedly this is what Pence was presented on January 4, with a view toward declaring Trump the winner on January 6. Purportedly none of the states at that time had presented the Vice President with multiple slates of electors -- that's from Woodward's and Costa's new book by way of CNN:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/0...stman.memo.pdf

This was a bunch of stupid folks trying to steal an election. A coup. And Pence wanted to go along with it until Dan Quayle of all people told him don’t be stupid.

1b1- you post as 'r' used to post

name-calling insults are not part of teh Forum Rules
Just because You claim to be a lawyer - does not mean you are exempt from forum rules.

shameful!
malcolm X and MLK Jr. would be horrified by teh Racism and prejudice of teh modern day DPST marxist party!

hoax

[hōks]



NOUN

hoax (noun) · hoaxes (plural noun)

1. a humorous or malicious deception.
   "they recognized the plan as a hoax" · [more]New content will be added above the current area of focus upon selection
   
   "he was accused of making hoax calls"
   
   synonyms:
   practical joke · joke · jest · prank · trick · jape · ruse · deception · fraud · imposture · cheat · swindle · bluff · humbug · confidence trick
   
   
   
   

VERB

hoax (verb) · hoaxes (third person present) · hoaxed (past tense) · hoaxed (past participle) · hoaxing (present participle)

1. deceive with a hoax.
   synonyms:
   play a practical joke on · play a joke on · play a jest on · play a prank on · [more
   
   
   
   
   

I don't understand the legalese, but supposedly this is what Pence was presented on January 4, with a view toward declaring Trump the winner on January 6. Purportedly none of the states at that time had presented the Vice President with multiple slates of electors -- that's from Woodward's and Costa's new book by way of CNN:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/0...stman.memo.pdf Originally Posted by Tiny

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

January 6 scenario

This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, “acting separately,” to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the “executive” of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures.

Playing semantics I see

Its sad when folks hide behind word play Originally Posted by winn dixie

Yes, very sad.

This was a bunch of stupid folks trying to steal an election. A coup. And Pence wanted to go along with it until Dan Quayle of all people told him don’t be stupid. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Tiny, who's the master?

When the audits force state legislators to decertify the electoral votes.

This is a good post Tiny.
Due to the pressure from Trump; the retarded media and voter fraud, I think Pence would have carried out his power to keep Trump in IF he had enough evidence. I wonder if Trump thought these two scenarios would be enough without evidence. Is there a document for that Quayle phone call?
All in all I think Pence's political career is over and maybe he misjudged that before making his decision.

When the audits force state legislators to decertify the electoral votes. Originally Posted by bambino

really????




you still believe that crazy shit!!!!!!!

That is not remotely the VP's responsibility, irrespective how the sad demented trumptards twist their Depends otherwise. Its called read the constitution dumb retards. God damn, your are so retarded.

Seriously? Can you read?

1b1- you post as 'r' used to post

name-calling insults are not part of teh Forum Rules
Just because You claim to be a lawyer - does not mean you are exempt from forum rules.

shameful!
malcolm X and MLK Jr. would be horrified by teh Racism and prejudice of teh modern day DPST marxist party! Originally Posted by oeb11

There are no name calling insults. He wasn't referring to any member of eccie. He was referring to the article. That has nothing to do with this forum and forum rules.


I could write something else. But it is already known how you would respond.


Best to just say..........read, read, read the posts before putting up your own post

This is a good post Tiny.
Due to the pressure from Trump; the retarded media and voter fraud, I think Pence would have carried out his power to keep Trump in IF he had enough evidence. I wonder if Trump thought these two scenarios would be enough without evidence. Is there a document for that Quayle phone call?
All in all I think Pence's political career is over and maybe he misjudged that before making his decision. Originally Posted by DesWad

This was a bunch of stupid folks trying to steal an election. A coup. And Pence wanted to go along with it until Dan Quayle of all people told him don’t be stupid. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I'd like to think that, when he called Quayle, Pence was searching for ammunition to try to shoot down Trump's command to overturn the election. Maybe he was -- as DesWad pointed out there's apparently no documentation for the Quayle phone call. You've got to believe Woodward's and Costa's source, whoever that may be.

But Pence seemed like he was almost codependent on Trump, right up until the bitter end when the crowd on Capitol Hill wanted to hang him from a tree.

It's strange. Trump more or less accused Cruz's father of involvement in Kennedy's assassination. And said some truly hateful things about his wife. McCarthy was pissed as hell at Trump after January 6. But like Cruz he's back singing Trump's praises. I don't know why Republican politicians put up with Trump.

This is what I don't get. Eastman's strategy, in the link above, was for Pence to refuse to count electors from 7 states, and declare the election in favor of Trump. At that point, however, he expected the electoral count to become irrelevant because neither candidate would have received a total of 270 electoral votes. So then apparently delegations of the states in the House of Representatives would decide the presidency. And 26 of the state delegations are controlled on Republicans.

This strategy would then depend on ALL 26 Republican delegations throwing their support to Trump. What are the chances of that happening? Zilch. It wouldn't happen.

I'm reluctant to say this because he's a renowned attorney, and I don't know shit about constitutional law, but it sounds like Eastman and the people who were listening to him were on drugs.

I'd like to think that, when he called Quayle, Pence was searching for ammunition to try to shoot down Trump's command to overturn the election. Maybe he was -- as DesWad pointed out there's apparently no documentation for the Quayle phone call. You've got to believe Woodward's and Costa's source, whoever that may be.

But Pence seemed like he was almost codependent on Trump, right up until the bitter end when the crowd on Capitol Hill wanted to hang him from a tree.

It's strange. Trump more or less accused Cruz's father of involvement in Kennedy's assassination. And said some truly hateful things about his wife. McCarthy was pissed as hell at Trump after January 6. But like Cruz he's back singing the Trump's praises. I don't know why Republican politicians put up with Trump. Originally Posted by Tiny

Fear. Plain and simple, unless you are someone like MTG who's enjoying the 15 minutes of fame. I have no doubt she's already got a book in the works.

This is what I don't get. Eastman's strategy, in the link above, was for Pence to refuse to count electors from 7 states, and declare the election in favor of Trump. At that point, however, he expected the electoral count to become irrelevant because neither candidate would have received a total of 270 electoral votes. So then apparently delegations of the states in the House of Representatives would decide the presidency. And 26 of the state delegations are controlled on Republicans.

This strategy would then depend on ALL 26 Republican delegations throwing their support to Trump. What are the chances of that happening? Zilch. It wouldn't happen.

I'm reluctant to say this because he's a renowned attorney, but it sounds like Eastman and the people who were listening to him were on drugs. Originally Posted by Tiny

Part of Eastman’s argument was that only a majority of electors recognized would be necessary, not the 270.

Woodward’s book didn’t make it appear Pence was trying to disregard the idea of following the plan. He was somehow, it appears, looking for permission.

What I don’t get is what did these people think was going to happen if the coup succeeded. Would the states, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the military just idly standby and recognize Trumps presidency? Were they prepared for a possible civil war? Actually stealing power surely can’t be expected to just have been ok. And do people like Pence and others even care what history is going to have to say about them? What their legacy will be.

I mean idiots on ECCIE and dummies in the streets have no legacy that matters but politicians with aspirations doing this dumb shit. Crazy.

Part of Eastman’s argument was that only a majority of electors recognized would be necessary, not the 270. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Got it. So letting the state delegations decide was a fallback position.

What I don’t get is what did these people think was going to happen if the coup succeeded. Would the states, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the military just idly standby and recognize Trumps presidency? Were they prepared for a possible civil war? Actually stealing power surely can’t be expected to just have been ok. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Agreed. It's bizarre.

I mean idiots on ECCIE and dummies in the streets have no legacy that matters but politicians with aspirations doing this dumb shit. Crazy. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

This is where we part company. There are no idiots on ECCIE. Rather there are wise men and women who are sometimes mistaken about certain things. Except for me of course. I know everything.

Anyway, they just need educating. For example, you could use enlightenment on a couple of economic points. And Winn Dixie on the dangers of snuff and fried pies.