People in Congress opposing the certification of electoral votes in common

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

We're lead to believe that anyone who questions the certification of electoral votes for an election is a horrible human being who is anti-Democracy. Well, here's how it really works:

List of Democrats who opposed the certification of electoral votes in the 2016 election

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) objected to Florida’ votes​

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) objected to Georgia’s votes​

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) objected to North Carolina’s votes​

Barbara Lee (D-CA) objected to all votes because of Russian interference​

Jim McGovern (D-Mass) objected to Alabama’s votes​

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) objected to North Carolina’s votes because of voter suppression​

Maxine Waters (D-CA) objected to Wyoming’s votes.​

List of Republicans who opposed certification of electoral votes in 2020 election

Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) objected to Arizona’s​

Josh Haley (R-MO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) objected to Pennsylvania​

Mo Brooks (R-AL) objected Nevada’s votes​

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) objected Michigan’s votes​

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) Objected Wisconsin’s votes​

​

Leftists and Democrats, do you have a problem with the GOP objecting to the certification of the electoral votes of 2020 in the key swing states where lots of questions were about voting integrity? And if not, why was it okay to do it in 2016?

 

[mamooth]

We're lead to believe that anyone who questions the certification of electoral votes for an election is a horrible human being who is anti-Democracy.

No, we're not. There's your problem.

We're not told that symbolic votes are bad. We're told genuine attempts to overthrow democracy are bad. You did the latter. We didn't.

 

[1srelluc]

 

[BlindBoo]

Leftists and Democrats, do you have a problem with the GOP objecting to the certification of the electoral votes of 2020 in the key swing states where lots of questions were about voting integrity? And if not, why was it okay to do it in 2016?

There was no organized or concerted effort to make up allegations about wide spread election fraud by the loser of the 2016 election. Democrat across the country loathed the idea that The Trumpybear was going to be president but they accepted their candidate concession in the wee hours of the morning after. "AP called the 2016 election for Donald Trump at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, and Clinton called Trump to congratulate him about 10 minutes later."

Not true with the Trumpybear and crew. He still hasn't conceded to Biden and they have made many wild accusations but lost nearly every court case they brought.

 

[colfax_m]

We're lead to believe that anyone who questions the certification of electoral votes for an election is a horrible human being who is anti-Democracy. Well, here's how it really works:

List of Democrats who opposed the certification of electoral votes in the 2016 election

Jamie Raskin (D-MD) objected to Florida’ votes​

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) objected to Georgia’s votes​

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) objected to North Carolina’s votes​

Barbara Lee (D-CA) objected to all votes because of Russian interference​

Jim McGovern (D-Mass) objected to Alabama’s votes​

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) objected to North Carolina’s votes because of voter suppression​

Maxine Waters (D-CA) objected to Wyoming’s votes.​

List of Republicans who opposed certification of electoral votes in 2020 election

Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) objected to Arizona’s​

Josh Haley (R-MO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) objected to Pennsylvania​

Mo Brooks (R-AL) objected Nevada’s votes​

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) objected Michigan’s votes​

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) Objected Wisconsin’s votes​

​

Leftists and Democrats, do you have a problem with the GOP objecting to the certification of the electoral votes of 2020 in the key swing states where lots of questions were about voting integrity? And if not, why was it okay to do it in 2016?

I had no problem with members of Congress objecting. The part that was a problem was trying to get Pence to disregard some votes entirely.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I had no problem with members of Congress objecting. The part that was a problem was trying to get Pence to disregard some votes entirely.

So, my understanding of the Eastman memo was not for Pence to just disregard, or toss out votes, but rather, send the ones in question back to the States for them to review and investigate. I just don't think it's accurate to say he was just going to unilaterally throw away votes.

 

[colfax_m]

So, my understanding of the Eastman memo was not for Pence to just disregard, or toss out votes, but rather, send the ones in question back to the States for them to review and investigate. I just don't think it's accurate to say he was just going to unilaterally throw away votes.

The Eastman memo doesn't "send it back" to the states, not that is anywhere near a valid procedure. If the states wanted to "review and investigate", they didn't need Pence to tell them to do it.

These are the memos:

Eastman memos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first memo:

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one – a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position – that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

So here, Pence would disregard the votes of a handful of states and provide Trump with enough votes to win (bolded above). Alternatively, he gets rid of enough votes so that the decision would go to vote of the House which would favor Trump again, meaning NOBODY'S votes count.

 

[Oddball]

So, my understanding of the Eastman memo was not for Pence to just disregard, or toss out votes, but rather, send the ones in question back to the States for them to review and investigate. I just don't think it's accurate to say he was just going to unilaterally throw away votes.

That's exactly what Pence was asked to do...But moonbats like him would rather just lie about it all.

 

[Oddball]

There was no organized or concerted effort to make up allegations about wide spread election fraud by the loser of the 2016 election. Democrat across the country loathed the idea that The Trumpybear was going to be president but they accepted their candidate concession in the wee hours of the morning after. "AP called the 2016 election for Donald Trump at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, and Clinton called Trump to congratulate him about 10 minutes later."

What utter bullshit.

 

[Leviticus]

Questioning election results is fine. Saying the election was rigged with no evidence (by evidence I mean something can be proven in court), and egging on extremists to the point that they are willing to try to overthrow the government is not.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Eastman memo doesn't "send it back" to the states, not that is anywhere near a valid procedure. If the states wanted to "review and investigate", they didn't need Pence to tell them to do it.

These are the memos:

Eastman memos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first memo:

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one – a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position – that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

So here, Pence would disregard the votes of a handful of states and provide Trump with enough votes to win (bolded above). Alternatively, he gets rid of enough votes so that the decision would go to vote of the House which would favor Trump again, meaning NOBODY'S votes count.

My bad, I misread or misremembered. Either way, technically, it's not pence just tossing votes, all it says is he will announce multiple slates of electors then send it to the house. That's the part I misremembered. He wouldn't send them back to the States, but to the house.

 

[colfax_m]

My bad, I misread or misremembered. Either way, technically, it's not pence just tossing votes, all it says is he will announce multiple slates of electors then send it to the house. That's the part I misremembered. He wouldn't send them back to the States, but to the house.

Yes, it technically is just Pence tossing votes here from the memo:

At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.

Pence would unilaterally decide that these votes don't count and are disregarded.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, it technically is just Pence tossing votes here from the memo:

At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States.

Pence would unilaterally decide that these votes don't count and are disregarded.

OK, but the memo goes on to acknowledge that there will be objections to that, so the votes would be turned to the House.

 

[colfax_m]

OK, but the memo goes on to acknowledge that there will be objections to that, so the votes would be turned to the House.

Objections to disregarding the votes of the people? Yeah, I guess so.

Turning it over to the House doesn’t restore our votes. In fact, it codifies their unilateral rejection and instead elects our president by the votes of his political cronies and not the people of the country.

 

[BlindBoo]

What utter bullshit.

That doesn't mean they didn't pledge to oppose him at every turn just as hard if not harder than McConnell and the budding Neo-GOP did to Obama. But what they didn't do is turn Americans against the once great American system like the Trumpybears Fascist block of Neo-Republicans have done.

 

[colfax_m]

That's exactly what Pence was asked to do...But moonbats like him would rather just lie about it all.

Memo was posted above which shows I was perfectly accurate.

I don’t lie. You’re just uninformed. Willfully so since you had to skip over my last post in order to call me a liar.