What are people thinking as they hear the Senate arguments?

“This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. “ Eastman Memo requesting PENCE to break from his duty to count all certified and in safe harbor slates of electors on Jan6.

Correll wrote: But, that would not be Pence "choosing" the President. That would only be the beginning of the alternative process. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: (1) What alternative process are you Correll wishfully dreaming about? (2) Do you agree with the Constitution and Federal Law that all legal voters in all fifty states shall have their votes counted on Jan6 no matter what the losers want to happen as long as each state’s election authority certified their respective election by mid-December referred to as safe harbor. (3) Is the alternative process you want Pence to “begin” what has been discovered as the Eastman Memo?

Below is the Eastmsn Memo. IF that is what you want to discuss. I have bolded one part of that and I will ask you to address It. FYI


READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.

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.

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 (here). 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. TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt - see “”” 21SEP21-EASTMANplan-00 TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt “”” 21NOV29-POST#1141
 
Last edited:
There were thousands of people there that day. ONly a few hundred actually entered the Capitol, thus earing the name "rioters".

Thus, conflating the vast majority with the few that crossed the line, is A. incorrect and B. implies that you know your position is incorrect, or you would not be lying like this
I have never conflated peaceful protesters with not peaceful protestors - you are a liar - the indicted Oath Keepers were in the Audience on Jan6 and received DJT’s message. They are charged with conspiracy to disrupt the transfer of power to Biden - I say that is taking the law into their own hands - they are vigilantes . That is a valid assessment not a lie..
 
“There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden”. (Pence then gavels) and says “President Trump is re-elected.” MIke Pence on Jan6 had he complied with the Eastman Plan and DJT and an angry mob with some threatening to hang him if he didn’t, as the one and only man able to choose himself and DJT the winner of the 2020 election.

Correll wrote: Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: No. Pence is absolutely correct when he says it is would be un-American for one man (himself) to choose DJT to be President after an ejection that he lost. Here is why Pence would be choosing DJT/PENCE the winning ticket from the 2020 ticket.,

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama

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. (And it would not be true)

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. (Seven states will not have milli That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. - - - 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. 21NOV29-POST#1141
 
1612907447749.png


Which was the insurrgency
Could you tell us @Doc505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing?
 
Correll wrote: Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145
 
I have never conflated peaceful protesters with not peaceful protestors - you are a liar - the indicted Oath Keepers were in the Audience on Jan6 and received DJT’s message. They are charged with conspiracy to disrupt the transfer of power to Biden - I say that is taking the law into their own hands - they are vigilantes . That is a valid assessment not a lie..


When you refer to the crowd as though they are all those 6 people, who by the way, are CHARGED, not convicted,


you are conflating peaceful protestors with rioters.
 
Correll wrote: Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145


So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial.

Good.

What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent?
 
NFBW wrote: I found two words that must’ve made Correll shit his pants. “Eastman Memo” and/or “safe harbor”
21NOV29-POST#1149

READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election By: CNN Updated 8:20 AM EDT, Tue September 21, 2021 21SEP21-EASTMANplan-00 TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.

Correll wrote: Do you want to discuss the issues, or do you want to just spam talking points? 21NOV29-POST#1146

NFBW wrote: I see Correll has to go to his ‘format defense’ over the word “subvert” - - - That was to be expected.

The fact is the Eastman Memo outlined a scheme to try to persuade Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results in seven states on Jan6. If Pence had succumbed to the pressure that DJT and his legal team put him under he would have had to subvert the Constitution first by telling a lie that was laid out in the Eastman memo.

“2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors,”

None of the states had more than the one certified slate of electors that were in safe harbor since December 14

IF Pence were willing to commit a lie like that it would definitely undermine the principles of the Constitution. It would have led to subverting millions of votes including those who vote in large metropolitan areas. It wouid be a voting rights violation for minority voters all on Mike Pence’s believed he was without proof under the impression that the vote was fraudulent? - - - If that is not fucking subversion - nothing is. 21NOV29-POST#1149
 
Last edited:
Correll wrote: Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or in heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145

Correll wrote: So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial. 21NOV29-POST#1148

NFBW wrote: No. Pence’s role with regard to his rejection of the false pretense that he had the authority or a constitutionally sound option to do what lying DJT and lying John Eastman pushed (LIE UNDER OATH) a good patriotic Christian American man to do, means that PENCE’s role was largely ceremonial. - - - In addition to that there is the 100% pure unquestionably true fact that the seven states that lying John Eastman and his fucking conniving sore loser asshole of a POTUS client who publicly wanted PENCE to remove from being counted seven of the BIDEN states that were constitutionally in safe harbor by December 14. - - - SAFE HARBOR means that Pence had to count them. Pence’s role is purely ceremonial on January 6th when it comes to PENCE’s duty to count the votes. - - - There is no option for one man to decide not to count the legal votes that were cast by the diversified American citizens residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas which means Pence’s role was 100% purely ceremonial for him as President of the Senate to count all the votes that were cast on election day and then were constitutionally certified as correct by each state by December 14. 21NOV30-POST#1150
 
Last edited:
1612907447749-png.455168.png


Doc7505 wrote: Which was the insurgency? 21FEB09-POST#19

NFBW wrote: Could you tell us Doc7505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing? 21NOV29-POST#1151


NFBW wrote: Same question for all the advocates for Trumpism who push the whataboutism and false equivalence of the Jan6 riot to the ANTI-Chauvin/murderer/protest - - - Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151
 
Last edited:
Correll wrote: What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent? 21NOV29-POST#1148

NFBW wrote: Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate is purely ceremonial. He must count all slated electors that were certification and in safe harbor by December 14. It matters not what Pence believed. 21NOV29-POST#1152
 
Last edited:
Correll wrote: Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or in heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145

Correll wrote: So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial. 21NOV29-POST#1148

NFBW wrote: No. Pence’s role with regard to his rejection of the false pretense that he had the authority or a constitutionally sound option to do what lying DJT and lying John Eastman pushed (LIE UNDER OATH) a good patriotic Christian American man to do, means that PENCE’s role was largely ceremonial. - - - In addition to that there is the 100% pure unquestionably true fact that the seven states that lying John Eastman and his fucking conniving sore loser asshole of a POTUS client who publicly wanted PENCE to remove from being counted seven of the BIDEN states that were constitutionally in safe harbor by December 14. - - - SAFE HARBOR means that Pence had to count them. Pence’s role is purely ceremonial on January 6th when it comes to PENCE’s duty to count the votes. - - - There is no option for one man to decide not to count the legal votes that were cast by the diversified American citizens residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas which means Pence’s role was 100% purely ceremonial for him as President of the Senate to count all the votes that were cast on election day and then were constitutionally certified as correct by each state by December 14. 21NOV30-POST#1150


Big difference between "mostly ceremonial" and "purely ceremonial".


So, part of your pile of unstated premises, if I am understanding your ranting correctly, is that you assume that President Trump was perfectly educated on all aspects of the Federal Government, or at least the Congress, on 1/6/21.

Two quick questions for you before we move on, and try to keep your answers concise.


1. Is that part of the basis of your position?

2. When do you think he educated himself on these functions? Did he do it in college as a young man? Or during his TV days? Perhaps you believe that as a very responsible person, he fully reviewed the rules of the Federal Government, top to bottom, while he was considering his Presidential run?
 
View attachment 569967

Doc7505 wrote: Which was the insurgency? 21FEB09-POST#19

NFBW wrote: Could you tell us Doc7505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing? 21NOV29-POST#1151


NFBW wrote: Same question for all the advocates for Trumpism who push the whataboutism and false equivalence of the Jan6 riot to the ANTI-Chauvin/murderer/protest - - - Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151


The "conditions" for 1/6? I could see that you could put that on Trump.

Now Not, to whom to you put the responsibility for the "conditions" for the much larger and far deadlier riots of the left over the previous 4 years?
 
Correll wrote: What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent? 21NOV29-POST#1148

NFBW wrote: Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate is purely ceremonial. He must count all slated electors that were certification and in safe harbor by December 14. It matters not what Pence believed. 21NOV29-POST#1152


Thank you. Now, why the fuck did it take you so long to say that, and what the fuck was all that other babble that you stuffed your posts full of?


This is a serious question. Is your thinking really that fucked up, or were you intentionally being an ass and spewing shit talking points, on purpose?
 
Correll wrote: Now Not, to whom do you put the responsibility for the "conditions" for the much larger and far deadlier riots of the left over the previous 4 years? 21NOV30-POST#1154

NFBW wrote: Jan6 is easy because the BIG LIE created the conditions for the riot by Trump Supporters who were attempting to give their cult leader a second term that he did not win. It was Trump that caused that riot and the assault against a live session of Congress. It never happens IF DJT quit the BIG LIE because all fifty states put their elections in safe harbor so Pence could count them and announce Joe Biden is President Elect. - - - Four years of separate, distinct riots dont have a BIG LIE by one person to pin four years of riots on just one person. So since It is not possible to pin four years of riots on one person I’ll tell you who I believe is responsible for the Derrick Chauvin riots. First and foremost the criminals who riot burn and loot are responsible for their crimes and should be prosecuted no matter the reason that set them off. But if you want one person to hang the Derrick Chauvin riots on, it certainly needs to be Derrick Chauvin and the Minneapolis PD. Just like if there would be no Jan6 riot if DJT did not propagate his Big Lie, there would be no Chauvin riots if Chauvin did not torture and murder George Floyd while being cam-corded. 21NOV30-POST#1156
 
Last edited:
The "conditions" for 1/6? I could see that you could put that on Trump.

NFBW wrote: NOT ME! Take it from a rioter that DJT called to help him steal an election: 21DEC01-POST#1157

Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.

The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol.


https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-crying-video/

"How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent.

"He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."
At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.

image.jpg.webp

Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.

The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol.

READ MORE: MAGA rioter who talked of desire to commit 'assassination' hit with conspiracy charges

"How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent.

"He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."

At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.
"I thought I was doing the right thing," he continued.

Rodriguez is currently facing multiple criminal charges, including conspiracy, assaulting a police officer, entering a restricted building, and theft and destruction of government property.
 
Correll wrote: Big difference between "mostly ceremonial" and "purely ceremonial". 21NOV29-POST#1153

NFBW wrote: Does not matter @Correl!. Because of the fact that all fifty states certified their elections in time to be put into safe harbor by December 14. That indisputable reality makes it legally and Constitutionally clear that the counting of the electors was a purely ceremonial ritual for Mr. Pence on Jan6. - - - Pence, as President of the Senate on Jan6 may have had duties to perform other than counting the votes that he did not consider to be ceremonial, like opening the joint session of Congress that was assaulted by Trump supporters who wanted to hang him. 21DEC01-POST#1158

NFBW wrote: Below are excerpts for you Correll from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1127

More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”
 
Last edited:
Thank you. Now, why the fuck did it take you so long to say that,
NFBW wrote: Faun and I have been saying Pence had no choice on Jan6 other than to count the votes and name Biden President elect in order to engage the peaceful transfer of power that was violently attacked by DJT supporters who were trying to stop it. 21DEC01-POST#1159

@ThisIsMe wrote: If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what Pence could do in regards to only those states. - - - The memo outlines a plan based on their thought that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election. 21OCT30-POST#680

@Faun wrote: Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven. 21NOV01-POST#681

NFBW wrote: Allow me to add to what Faun is explaining to further your edification on the CONSTITUTION that you are unwittingly kind of proving that DJT does not give a flying fuck about the Constitution and John Eastman was lying to his client the entire time. - - - @Faun has it right and I will add the concept of “safe harbor” that let’s say by mid December the safe harbor status “constitutionally” ends any chance for SORE losers (may I call them that @ThisIsMe ) to legally challenge each states’ certification that is sealed and is to be submitted to Congress. Hence the Date Jan6 to open and read them no later than January 6. I’m sure the founders in colonial times wanted to give the sealed documents time to make the journey to the Capitol. 21NOV01-POST#685

If you were to read this I think you will be able to answer all your questions and not need the help of a hifallutin lawyer./ This part ain’t complicated, even for a clueless moron like DJT.

“”””” It may come and go without much fanfare, but on Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Joe Biden's victory as the 46th president

Biden's Victory Cemented As States Reach Key Electoral College Deadline
© 2020 npr

The day, Dec. 8, is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, compelling Congress to accept those results “””””

I understand you may think NPR is part of the DEEP STATE out to destroy poor victim Trump but their explanation of “safe harbor” is factual and csnnot be faked. 21NOV01-POST#685


#688
@ThisIsMe wrote: Again, I have been trying to keep my discussion focused around the question of the integrity of the committee, that is all 21OCT31-POST#678

NFBW wrote: And there is really nothing to talk about because thus far their integrity is intact. The integrity of those being investigated is non-existent. I suggest we discuss the integrity of both sides instead of trashing only the members of Congress that are doing exactly what they appear to believe they came to Congress to do. Defend and protect the Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America from foreign and domestic threats. Its a job made very difficult when the Constitution is under attack by a sitting , and now former, president - - - Trump and his anti-Democratic and anti-constitutional supporters, militias, media operatives and conspiracy believing nutjobs have put us, as a nation into. THATS ALL 21NOV01POST#688
 
Four years of separate, distinct riots dont have a ... by one person to pin four years of riots on just one person

I didn't ask you to "pin it on one person", or to condense it down to "one" statement.


I find it interesting that you are so concerned about the blame for the 4 hours of rioting on 1/6, when one person died, and that was a rioter shot by a cop,


but you have no interesting in blame for the far more violent, deadly and destructive riots of the previous four years.


Your pretense of being so concerned about the 1/6 riot, is not very credible when you have no concern about the far more massive riots on YOUR side of the political divide.


I will give you one more chance. Who is responsible for setting the conditions for the 4 years of riots?
 

Forum List

Back
Top