Pence unloads on Trump: Former VP says 'nothing more un-American than idea that one person could cho

[sneakypete]

So is Trump.

@kevindavis

Dream on,Party Creature!

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

So what? Your record,as well as everyone else's "record" on this issue is meaningless. Everybody is either starting out wrong and staying wrong,or starting out right TECHNICALLY,but still wrong because no one in the DNC or the alleged RNC give a damn about right and wrong.

This is a political world of reality being defined as "what you can get away with."

All they care about is getting away with it,and the left flat out got away with stealing the last election.

The Right understands this perfectly,and some are willing to just bend over and grab their ankles while pretending it is ok,and others are outraged MUCH more than usual because they understand there is not one single damn thing they can do about it at this point.

Right and wrong don't even really enter into the conversation.

@sneakypete

I think the Ds took their usual tactics of cheating and stealing to a new level in 2020.  If it were up to me a lot of them would pay the price for treason over it.

It might be too late for right and wrong, but it is never too late for true and false.  And we aren't going to solve the problem of Ds cheating by doubling down on false.  When I see false I call bullshit, and it doesn't matter to me what other people think about me doing it.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

I think the Ds took their usual tactics of cheating and stealing to a new level in 2020.  If it were up to me a lot of them would pay the price for treason over it.

It might be too late for right and wrong, but it is never too late for true and false.  And we aren't going to solve the problem of Ds cheating by doubling down on false.  When I see false I call bullshit, and it doesn't matter to me what other people think about me doing it.

@HoustonSam

My friend,THAT is an OBLIGATION we ALL SHARE,even while we may disagree on what right and wrong is on any particular issue.

If we remain silent,EVERYBODY loses as we become a police state and no longer have the right to disagree.

Disagreeing rates VERY high in MY "book of morality".

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

My friend,THAT is an OBLIGATION we ALL SHARE,even while we may disagree on what right and wrong is on any particular issue.

If we remain silent,EVERYBODY loses as we become a police state and no longer have the right to disagree.

Disagreeing rates VERY high in MY "book of morality".

Amen Brother @sneakypete .

 

[roamer_1]

The white hot anger was manufactured by the MSM over years of lies and bullshit. Even opposing viewpoints were derided, and in my experience was held by only a couple of types of people: Youngsters who got their news from social media where it was every bit as fashionable to bash Trump as it was to spew vitriol about Nixon back in the day (in fact, the whole 5 years of hate week reminded me of the jihad against RMH, only without any basis in law or fact). The rest were Hillary fans who are a lost cause anyway.

Doesn't matter and frankly sounds crybaby. MUCH of it was instigated by Tumpy himself... And even damn lies don't matter when Tumpy himself is lying like a damn rug. The act of meeting the press at their own level... Never wrestle with a pig, right? Only this time there's a pig on all sides. And everybody is cheering on their own pig, and is trained to hate the other pig(s). Nothing measured. Nothing journalistic... Just poo-throwing all around.

But what I did see were blacks and Latinos/Hispanics who seriously supported Trump,because they Came out here during an oil boom, made good money in good jobs and proved it could be done. Now, I know this is just one small corner of flyover country, but Trump got 82% of the votes in this county. Unheard of, but real, and this wasn't the highest percentage in the state. The liberal areas in the East we are saddled with, the same people who demand "their share" of oil impact grants for towns which are 350 or more miles from any oil wells over those in the thick of things trying to keep infrastructure together and hire enough sheriff's deputies to take care of things, well those areas went more for Biden than the West (which is typical, we produce, they put their hand out over there), but even then, Trump got 65% of the vote overall in the State and only failed to carry two counties with Indian Reservations, which, for some reason$ I don't under$stand, $eem to vote for Democrat$ pretty con$i$tently.

Not quite... but mostly, so what? Is it your opinion that Tumpy made huge forays into LIBERAL cities everywhere? Because no one is even claiming that.

In other words, in a State with a Republican Legislature and Governor, where people generally work for a living and hold their work ethic dear, even in all but the most Liberal two Counties (out of 53), Trump won handily.

But the white hot hatred you see was an artifact, a product of an Orwellian Hate Week that didn't stop in the media, and the BIG LIE applied over and over to an age group that knows no better.

Nah. They ALWAYS play the big lie. Ever since I have been cognizant of politics, which was peripherally Nixon And somewhat Ford.

Fashion follows folly, almost essentially, and is a poor reason for making choices, as I suspect another generation is waking up to as they realize they've been had.

All of that has no traction against the end result. You can whine and cry and throw dirt in the air all day long, claim he was martyred, claim it was all so unfair... But the bottom line is that there was an equally massive liberal wave to rise up against Tump which realistically nullified most of his wave. All you can be arguing about is the very top of both curves. A tiny percentage of the whole. Sorry, but that is a bare fact. Y'all didn't change hearts and minds significantly in NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, or LA. And you should quit trying to.

[roamer_1]

Trump put Pence in a lose/lose situation by agitating for Pence to assert authority that does not exist.  Pence did the only thing he could, but yes it effectively ends his career in elective politics; that should be clear just from reading this board.  Pence is also incredibly stupid to talk about being proud of it, that just inflames controversy even more.

That's likely right.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately, that 'likability' is often molded by the hatefests in social media or the MSM, and whether those make any rational sense or not, that religious fervor is contagious among those not innoculated against the lunacy of the MSM and pop culture.

I would humbly submit that current runs in two directions. 

[Free Vulcan]

Pence followed to the letter the only procedure that exists in law.  You can prove me wrong by citing the specific provisions of the law that authorize the President of the Senate to return certified, state-sealed EVs upon the request of legislators.  Just quote in any legal document - The Constitution, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, or Chapter 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations - the written details of the procedure for state legislators recalling EVs from the Joint Session.

I have made that offer to three people on this thread, and the record for proving me wrong is 0 for 3; in fact none of the three batters even took a swing.  Maybe you'll do better.

A little more research might have been in order.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12

Objecting to the Counting of One or More
Electoral Votes

Provisions in 3 U.S.C. §15 include a procedure for making and acting on objections to the
counting of one or more of the electoral votes from a state or the District of Columbia. When the
certificate or equivalent paper from each state (or the District of Columbia) is read, “the President
of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any such objection must be presented in writing
and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection “shall state
clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.... ” During the joint session of
January 6, 2001, the presiding officer intervened on several occasions to halt attempts to make
speeches under the guise of offering an objection.

When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one
Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately. The statute states
that “[n]o votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously
made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.” However, in
1873, before enactment of the law now in force, the joint session agreed, without objection and
for reasons of convenience, to entertain objections with regard to two or more states before the
houses met separately on any of them.

Disposing of Objections

The joint session does not act on any objections that are made. Instead, the joint session is
suspended while each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on
the objection, to count the vote or votes in question. Both houses must vote separately to agree to
the objection. Otherwise, the objection fails and the vote or votes are counted. (3 U.S.C. §15,
provides that “the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes.... ”)

These procedures have been invoked twice since enactment of the 1887 law. The first was an
instance of what has been called the “faithless elector” problem. In 1969, a Representative (James
O’Hara of Michigan) and a Senator (Edmund S. Muskie of Maine) objected in writing to counting
the vote of an elector from North Carolina who had been expected to cast his vote for Richard
Nixon and Spiro Agnew, but who instead cast his vote for George Wallace and Curtis LeMay.
Both chambers met and voted separately to reject the objection, so when the joint session
resumed, the challenged electoral vote was counted as cast.11 In that instance, the elector whose
vote was challenged was from a state that did not by law “bind” its electors to vote only for the
candidates to whom they were pledged. The instance of a “faithless” elector from a state that
does, in fact, bind the elector by law to vote for the candidate to whom listed or pledged has not
yet been expressly addressed by Congress or the courts.12

11 When the two chambers reconvened in joint session, the Secretary of the Senate reported that the Senate had agreed
to the following action: “Ordered, that the Senate by a vote of 33 ayes to 58 nays rejects the objection to the electoral
votes cast in the State of North Carolina for George C. Wallace for President and Curtis E. LeMay for Vice President.”
The Clerk of the House stated the results of the House action: “Ordered, that the House of Representatives rejects the
objection to the electoral vote of the State of North Carolina submitted by the Representative from Michigan, Mr.
O’Hara, and the Senator from Maine, Mr. Muskie.” Congressional Record, vol. 115 (January 6, 1969), p. 171. The
House vote was 170-228. See also Deschler’s Precedents, vol. 3, chap. 10, §3.6. Both houses used roll call votes to
decide the question.

12 See Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) in which the Court upheld the permissibility of such state limitations but did
not address their enforceability.

The second instance was related to reported voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2005, a
Representative (Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio) and a Senator (Barbara Boxer of California)
objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes. The chambers withdrew from the joint session to
consider the objection, and the House and Senate each rejected the objection. When the House
and Senate resumed the joint session, the electoral votes were counted as cast.13


Procedures for  Considering Objections

3 U.S.C. §17 lays out procedures for each house to follow in debating and voting on an objection.
These procedures limit debate on the objection to not more than two hours, during which each
Member may speak only once, and for not more than five minutes. Then “it shall be the duty of
the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.” Under this
provision, the presiding officer in each house held in 1969 that a motion to table the objection
was not in order.14

In the House, the Speaker announced both in 1969 and 2005 that he would attempt to recognize
supporters of the objection and opponents in an alternating fashion for the duration of the twohour period. In one instance in 1969, the Speaker inquired whether a Member supported or
opposed the challenge before he agreed to recognize him to speak. Members can yield to each
other during debate as they can during five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, and
many chose to do so in 2005. The Speaker also entertained unanimous consent requests to insert
material in the Congressional Record.

In 1969 the Senate agreed, by unanimous consent, to a different way in which the time for debate
was to be controlled and allocated, granting one hour each to the majority and minority leaders
and authorizing them to yield not more than five minutes to any Senator seeking recognition to
speak.15 The five-minute debate prescribed in the statute was followed in 2005, however, and the
Presiding Officer entertained requests to insert statements into the Congressional Record.

Basis for Objections

The general grounds for an objection to the counting of an electoral vote or votes would appear
from the federal statute and from historical sources to be that such vote was not “regularly given”
by an elector, and/or that the elector was not “lawfully certified” according to state statutory
procedures. The statutory provision first provides in the negative that “no electoral vote ...
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified ... from which but one
return has been received shall be rejected” (3 U.S.C. §15), and then reiterates for clarity16 that
both houses concurrently may reject a vote when not “so regularly given” by electors “so
certified” (3 U.S.C. §15). It should be noted that the word “lawfully” was expressly inserted by
the House in the Senate legislation (S. 9, 49th Congress) before the word “certified.”
17 Such addition arguably provides an indication that Congress thought it might, as grounds for an

13 When the two chambers reconvened in joint session, the Secretary of the Senate reported that the Senate had agreed
to the following action: “Ordered, that the Senate by a vote of 1 aye to 74 nays rejects the objection to the electoral
votes cast in the State of Ohio for George W. Bush for President and Richard Cheney for Vice President.” The Clerk of
the House then stated the results of the House action: “Ordered, that the House of Representatives rejects the objection
to the electoral vote of the State of Ohio.” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (January 6, 2005), p. H128.
The House vote was 31-267. Both houses used roll call votes to decide the question.

14 Deschler’s Precedents, ch. 10, §3.7, pp. 18-20.

15 Deschler’s Precedents, ch. 10, §3.8, pp. 20-23.

16 See Conference Report on 1887 legislation, Congressional Record, vol. 18 (January 14, 1887), p. 668.

17 Ibid.

objection, question and look into the lawfulness of the certification under state law. The objection
that votes were not “regularly given” may, in practice, subsume the objection that the elector was
not “lawfully certified,” for a vote given by one not “lawfully certified” may arguably be other
than “regularly given.” Nevertheless, the two objections are not necessarily the same. In the case
of the so-called “faithless elector” in 1969, described above, the elector was apparently “lawfully
certified” by the state, but the objection raised was that the vote was not “regularly given” by
such elector. In the above-described 2005 case, the objection was also based on the grounds that
the electoral votes “were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.”

There is indeed statutory provision for lawful and properly filed objections. You can't under parliamentary procedure just ignore them, you have to deal with them in some manner, even if they are ultimately dismissed.

Pence did not follow proper parliamentary procedure.

[Free Vulcan]

How Congress certifies Electoral College results: What to know

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-congress-certifies-electoral-college-results-what-to-know

[Smokin Joe]

@HoustonSam

My friend,THAT is an OBLIGATION we ALL SHARE,even while we may disagree on what right and wrong is on any particular issue.

If we remain silent,EVERYBODY loses as we become a police state and no longer have the right to disagree.

Disagreeing rates VERY high in MY "book of morality".

I always figured it would be cheaper to disagree while we were just fighting with words.

Not disagreeing is never cheap, when the truth is at stake, and waiting just means the price of Liberty will be much, much higher.

[sneakypete]

I always figured it would be cheaper to disagree while we were just fighting with words.

@Smokin Joe


VERY true,but the adrenaline rush just ain't the same. I honestly think this is why SOME people,mostly from the left who get their rush from watching OTHER people do the fighting,keep pushing and just never stop.

Not disagreeing is never cheap, when the truth is at stake, and waiting just means the price of Liberty will be much, much higher.

It is ALWAYS much,much higher in the long run.

BTW,notice how everybody on EBERY TB station in the known universe suddenly just can't find even good things to praise Bill Barr over?

Notice how he is on the teebee quoting the BIDEN Justice Dept officials,who are ALL political flunkies and Dim appointments given their positions by the Biden administration?

Yet the media NEVER seems to highlight the "insider baseball game" being played?

After all,WHO is shocked by a Biden Administration agreeing with the DNC?

Yet Barr is skating on this. Not a WORD of criticism from the RNC weenies. It's only the rank and file Republic voters like me bringing it up,and I even seem to be the first.  Which HAS to be impossible,but I honestly haven't seen or heard anyone bring this point up.

[HoustonSam]

There is indeed statutory provision for lawful and properly filed objections. You can't under parliamentary procedure just ignore them, you have to deal with them in some manner, even if they are ultimately dismissed.

Pence did not follow proper parliamentary procedure.

I have already cited five independent references in post 36 above on this thread indicating that written objections were fully considered in accord with the statutes and precedents you cite.  The Joint Session adjourned twice to separate chambers to debate written objections, one for AZ's EVs and once for PA's.  Neither objection was sustained by either chamber. 

It is not true that Pence ignored written objections to EVs and hence violated procedure.

False.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954380156/here-are-the-republicans-who-objected-to-the-electoral-college-count

https://ballotpedia.org/Counting_of_electoral_votes_(January_6-7,_2021)

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Electoral_College_vote_count

The only states for which Senators submitted written objections were Arizona and Pennsylvania.  Since House members had also submitted written objections for these states, in both instances the Joint Session adjourned to separate sessions of each chamber, in accord with the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

The demonstration occurred during the consideration of the objections to AZ's EVs in each chamber; the objections to PA's EVs took place in each chamber after the Joint Session re-convened when the demonstration had been cleared.

Please cite a reference for the assertion that written objections from members of both chambers were ignored.

Several people have repeated the disproven claim that Pence simply ignored the procedures for considering objections.  Where is that belief coming from?

You've taken a good swing here, but it's still a miss.

[Lando Lincoln]

Go Liz...

Your posts are becoming tiresome and you know exactly what you are doing.  They add nothing and are designed/intended to irritate.  Nothing more.

[libertybele]

Your posts are becoming tiresome and you know exactly what you are doing.  They add nothing and are designed/intended to irritate.  Nothing more.

Agreed!!!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe


VERY true,but the adrenaline rush just ain't the same. I honestly think this is why SOME people,mostly from the left who get their rush from watching OTHER people do the fighting,keep pushing and just never stop.


It is ALWAYS much,much higher in the long run.

BTW,notice how everybody on EBERY TB station in the known universe suddenly just can't find even good things to praise Bill Barr over?

Notice how he is on the teebee quoting the BIDEN Justice Dept officials,who are ALL political flunkies and Dim appointments given their positions by the Biden administration?

Yet the media NEVER seems to highlight the "insider baseball game" being played?

After all,WHO is shocked by a Biden Administration agreeing with the DNC?

Yet Barr is skating on this. Not a WORD of criticism from the RNC weenies. It's only the rank and file Republic voters like me bringing it up,and I even seem to be the first.  Which HAS to be impossible,but I honestly haven't seen or heard anyone bring this point up.

I noticed the guy who couldn't see any evidence of the Steal is still in there sucking it up and acting like he belongs. (Because he is right at home, the effin' pollywog knows the swamp).
I noticed, but I also have been watching to see who would mention it. Barr, Pence, a lot of the swamp critters are making themselves known because they feel safe.  Its the real pros who will manage to not out themselves and keep the game going.