Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

because he isnt a constitutional scholar/attorney

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

There are ongoing criminal investigations at the federal and state levels. Only one article of impeachment was introduced for the sake of speed.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

Where we differ, and I think Sam too, is that I don't believe discussing and investigating scenarios or options is criminal. I go by what is done and what actually happens. Been in too many meetings where impractical, stupid or even against State statute ideas were brought up and ultimately dismissed. That is how I view this. Pence, a part of the President's team, looked at the information, got legal input, determined what is required and did it. The election was certified. You cannot separate the VP's actions from the Administration's, the VP is only President of the Senate because he was Trump's VP.

This attorney from AZ could say whatever he wants, using whatever terms he wants, what is important is how how did they act on it? Election Certified, Biden Inaugurated, and Trump vacated the White House. I do not see how you can prosecute someone or a group for getting bad information if they didn't do it.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

Where we differ, and I think Sam too, is that I don't believe discussing and investigating scenarios or options is criminal. I go by what is done and what actually happens. Been in too many meetings where impractical, stupid or even against State statute ideas were brought up and ultimately dismissed. That is how I view this. Pence, a part of the President's team, looked at the information, got legal input, determined what is required and did it. The election was certified. You cannot separate the VP's actions from the Administration's, the VP is only President of the Senate because he was Trump's VP.

This attorney from AZ could say whatever he wants, using whatever terms he wants, what is important is how how did they act on it? Election Certified, Biden Inaugurated, and Trump vacated the White House. I do not see how you can prosecute someone or a group for getting bad information if they didn't do it.

---

This is Trump's attorney advocating something he admits won't pass legal scrutiny. They conspired to perpetrate a fraud. That the fraud failed doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy which violated criminal law.

The dozens of emails among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people who would claim with no basis to be Electoral College electors on his behalf in battleground states that he had lost.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word "fake" to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump's allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

Where we differ, and I think Sam too, is that I don't believe discussing and investigating scenarios or options is criminal. I go by what is done and what actually happens. Been in too many meetings where impractical, stupid or even against State statute ideas were brought up and ultimately dismissed. That is how I view this. Pence, a part of the President's team, looked at the information, got legal input, determined what is required and did it. The election was certified. You cannot separate the VP's actions from the Administration's, the VP is only President of the Senate because he was Trump's VP.

This attorney from AZ could say whatever he wants, using whatever terms he wants, what is important is how how did they act on it? Election Certified, Biden Inaugurated, and Trump vacated the White House. I do not see how you can prosecute someone or a group for getting bad information if they didn't do it.

---

This is Trump's attorney advocating something he admits won't pass legal scrutiny. They conspired to perpetrate a fraud. That the fraud failed doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy which violated criminal law.

The dozens of emails among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people who would claim with no basis to be Electoral College electors on his behalf in battleground states that he had lost.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word "fake" to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump's allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

---

Well, the alternate could be that we looked at it and it didn't pass muster, so Pence certified. How do you prove the negative?? They didn't follow the advice or the potential option when the attorney looked into it further. We decided that certifying and having a peaceful demonstration was more in line with what was responsible. Sadly, some bad apples ruined it. We told them to be peaceful and told them to stand down. I even wanted to go to the Capital and get them to stop, but the SS and some whacky Aide wouldn't let me... Sad that the City didn't have it under control. Prove that I am wrong???

I threw spaghetti? I yelled at people when it was official that I lost? I don't like Biden as President. I am a sore loser, character flaw. I do work on it. Any further questions???

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

Where we differ, and I think Sam too, is that I don't believe discussing and investigating scenarios or options is criminal. I go by what is done and what actually happens. Been in too many meetings where impractical, stupid or even against State statute ideas were brought up and ultimately dismissed. That is how I view this. Pence, a part of the President's team, looked at the information, got legal input, determined what is required and did it. The election was certified. You cannot separate the VP's actions from the Administration's, the VP is only President of the Senate because he was Trump's VP.

This attorney from AZ could say whatever he wants, using whatever terms he wants, what is important is how how did they act on it? Election Certified, Biden Inaugurated, and Trump vacated the White House. I do not see how you can prosecute someone or a group for getting bad information if they didn't do it.

---

I understand your point of view a little better when you explain it this way. The difference is, I don't believe it was just talk. Clearly it wasn't. Trump and his attorneys took certain actions to keep him in office, and it's those actions that constitute wrongdoing regardless of the result. That's the meaning of a criminal or otherwise wrongful attempt. Also keep in mind that the same action may be corrupt or not depending on the circumstances. When Hawaii certified two sets of electors in 1960, there was legitimate uncertainty because of a recount in progress. If there had been a similar situation in 2020, you could argue that was precedent. The trouble is that there was no prospect of a legitimate victory for Trump and everyone knew it. That's what makes the actions corrupt, and that's the significance of the testimony heard by the committee.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "The point is that no patriotic American should support Trump again, regardless of what Congress does"

Spoken like a true Schiffist.

My point is that you have zero standing to decree what makes someone a "patriotic American".

Trump started no new wars. A "patriotic American" might well prefer that to the wars started by Bush, Obama and Biden.

Trump focused on jobs and energy independence. A "patriotic American" might well prefer a strong, thriving America to what Obama gave us with socialized medicine and Biden did with his economic cirrhosis.

Let the people decide, based on the candidates and their polices. No pre-conditions or media massaging necessary or appropriate.

---

Patriots can disagree on all kinds of policies. What must be agreed is that there are lines we won't cross in pursuit of our agenda. As one of the committee's witnesses explained, Trump had every right to litigate the election in court. When he loses in court and continues to challenge the results for months and years, he's no longer attacking just the election. He's attacking our legal and constitutional system itself. That he's doing so based on a lie only makes it worse. Worse yet, unlike Biden, he had an actual plan to steal the election and tried his best to effect it. And he did all of this in plain view without a hint of shame or remorse. You defend it and still presume to call others un-American or fascist. It's you who lack standing.

---

He didn't actually do anything nor did he order anyone to do anything. He just voiced his opinion.

---

I like you, but that's some bull**** and we both know it.

---

What's bullsh*t is that the intel community can cook up the RussiaGate lie, effect 2018 midterms with it and then turn around and lie about Hunter laptop and Joe's involvement with it in order to help Biden win the election.

This body of government that's going after Trump has NOTHING to say about all of this corruption. Why should I take them seriously?

---

If you have nothing to say about Trump's corruption, why should they take you seriously? You can stand for the truth or join the race to the bottom. You can't do both at once.

---

Let's say Trump is legit responsible for J6. The only realistic scenario is they take down Trump and sweep their own corruption under the rug and people like you just accept it.

---

Did I accept the Mueller investigation? The first Trump impeachment? The 2020 riots?

---

You accept that there will be no accountability for it.

---

I accept that there will probably be no criminal accountability for Trump, either. What I want for both sides is political accountability. I especially want us as conservatives to be able to say we're better than this.

---

If the riot didn't happen and people didn't trespass, would you still support getting Trump off the ballot for what he said?

If your answer is no, you haven't met the threshold to justify any of this.

---

Not just for what he said, but for participating in the fake elector scheme and conspiring to obstruct certification of the election results. That alone would have cleared the bar for impeachment.

---

Wasn't he impeached for that? Impeachment is the correct way to handle this type of action. Not this crap...

---

No, he was impeached for inciting violence against the Unites States. Obstruction was mentioned, specifically his phone calls to Georgia, but not the fake electors.

---

Because the alternate electors was not illegal and Pence didn't choose them. You keep downplaying what actually happened. If it was even speculated as illegal it would have been included.

---

Why did the Trump's lawyer call them "fake votes"?

"We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted," Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," adding a smiley face emoji.

---

Where we differ, and I think Sam too, is that I don't believe discussing and investigating scenarios or options is criminal. I go by what is done and what actually happens. Been in too many meetings where impractical, stupid or even against State statute ideas were brought up and ultimately dismissed. That is how I view this. Pence, a part of the President's team, looked at the information, got legal input, determined what is required and did it. The election was certified. You cannot separate the VP's actions from the Administration's, the VP is only President of the Senate because he was Trump's VP.

This attorney from AZ could say whatever he wants, using whatever terms he wants, what is important is how how did they act on it? Election Certified, Biden Inaugurated, and Trump vacated the White House. I do not see how you can prosecute someone or a group for getting bad information if they didn't do it.

---

This is Trump's attorney advocating something he admits won't pass legal scrutiny. They conspired to perpetrate a fraud. That the fraud failed doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy which violated criminal law.

The dozens of emails among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people who would claim with no basis to be Electoral College electors on his behalf in battleground states that he had lost.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word "fake" to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump's allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

---

Well, the alternate could be that we looked at it and it didn't pass muster, so Pence certified. How do you prove the negative?? They didn't follow the advice or the potential option when the attorney looked into it further. We decided that certifying and having a peaceful demonstration was more in line with what was responsible. Sadly, some bad apples ruined it. We told them to be peaceful and told them to stand down. I even wanted to go to the Capital and get them to stop, but the SS and some whacky Aide wouldn't let me... Sad that the City didn't have it under control. Prove that I am wrong???

I threw spaghetti? I yelled at people when it was official that I lost? I don't like Biden as President. I am a sore loser, character flaw. I do work on it. Any further questions???

---

Except that's not what happened. It's not even close to what happened. "They" never reached any agreement to abandon the plan. Pence abandoned it on his own with Trump opposing him to the end.

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as to whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

---

you are long winded with a very short answer today..

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

---

you are long winded with a very short answer today..

---

Sorry, what I meant to say was "yes and no."

And now we know why Cheney is on the committee..

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

So you don't think the 2020 election had anything out of the ordinary that would give more leeway in challenging? Nothing like drop boxes, extended hours and days, mail ins, vote harvesting allegations, voting machine error allegations, etc... Remember this is Jan 6th. 45 days after the election, March when the counting act was passed or years for the Jan 6th commission. 2020 was anything but normal. On top of that, Pence didn't select alternate electors. Sorry, not seeing a clear cut criminal case.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

---

Dems are also supporting Trump endorsed candidates.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

---

Dems are also supporting Trump endorsed candidates.

---

yes, you are repeating yourself..

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

---

Dems are also supporting Trump endorsed candidates.

---

yes, you are repeating yourself..

---

No gif?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

---

Dems are also supporting Trump endorsed candidates.

---

yes, you are repeating yourself..

---

No gif?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

And now we know why Cheney's support is spiking…

---

FIFY

---

yeah, she only 20 points behind in her own state..

Dems are donating to her campaign like she one of them..

---

Dems are also supporting Trump endorsed candidates.

---

yes, you are repeating yourself..

---

No gif?

---

---

Best argument you've had in a while

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

So you don't think the 2020 election had anything out of the ordinary that would give more leeway in challenging? Nothing like drop boxes, extended hours and days, mail ins, vote harvesting allegations, voting machine error allegations, etc... Remember this is Jan 6th. 45 days after the election, March when the counting act was passed or years for the Jan 6th commission. 2020 was anything but normal. On top of that, Pence didn't select alternate electors. Sorry, not seeing a clear-cut criminal case.

---

There are claims of fraud after every close election. After extended inquiry, fraud is usually determined in a tiny fraction of the vote. At this point, roughly 2000 votes have been shown to be questionable to bring before a court of law to determine fraud (roughly consistent with the number of fraud votes in past elections). In this Country (at least for the moment) a claim of fraud must be determined in a court of law.

The drop boxes, mail in votes and extended hours were all established in states months prior to the election, no state legislature, governor, rose up to reject the plans (no one even objected to them until Trump raised the storm over them).
As to vote harvesting, the mule movie is a complete joke: The director pled guilty to a felony of...wait for it...election fraud. The technologies cited do not do what the movie claims, major investigative units they claimed to have assisted never heard of them, State of Georgia investigated many of the individuals purported to be mules and determined them to be Fathers delivering votes for family, perfectly legal in the state.

Trump supporters persist in claims that have yet to be credible. Trump began the stop the steal and found it was a means to raise a quarter of a $billion in donations. With this hoard of cash, Trump pursued the legitimate way to fight the election result--in a court of law-- with attorney's who made the most incompetent defense on the behalf of a sitting President in the History of the Republic. While it is a bit murky what Trump is required to do with the $250mm he is sitting on, I expect most of it will not leave his fingers easily.

---

Well said.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Trump spending hours in front of a television at the White House watching the attack on the Capitol unfold that day, ignoring pleas from staff, supporters and family to call off the rioterssome of whom were hunting for Mr. Pence.

---

---

---

What do you say he did to stop the riot?

---

---

So Trump did nothing

---

The worst that could be said is that he demonstrated considerably greater leadership and effort to stop a riot than any Democrat did at any time during the prior 12 months. At no point did he exhort anything other than peaceful, legal exercise of 1st Amendment rights. He did not raise money (or pardon) anyone connected to the riot. He has not lauded or extolled anyone or any organization involved in the riot as heroes or leaders of his movement or his party.

He's a frickin' paragon of virtue compared to the people you are caucusing with.

---

He's got a point, compared to the Summer of Love and Portland, Jan 6th was an efficient slap down of the rioters.

---

Portland did it so it's okay if Trump tries to steal a national election as long as he fails

---

There you go again, making jumps with NO EVIDENCE. You want to say that Trump was a sore loser, you want to say he looked at Constitutional ways to challenge the election, you want to say he is a jerk. Hard to argue.

But to say he tried to steal an election through force is slanderous with no proof. To date, with 18 months of investigation by multiple Federal Agencies and Congress there is no connection between the idiots breaking into Congress and Trump to steal an election. Especially since it went forward on the 6th. You have a bunch of circumstantial inferences. That is not proof, no matter what you, Liz and Sam want to say.

---

It was not a constitutional process. The best you can say is that Trump adopted an unconstitutional plan, despite being told by his vice president, his attorney general, Republican senators, and his own lawyers that it was both factually groundless and illegal, and that he allowed violence to happen out of spite when the plan failed. That alone should be enough to disqualify him. The worst you can say is that he actually knew he lost the election and that the plan was illegal, and he encouraged violence with the intention of bullying Congress into cooperating so that he could remain in power. That's obviously worse. But in neither case should he ever be considered for public office again.

---

I keep hearing that. Yet the Party selects the Electors. If the GOP in those States chose a different slate, the least it should be is not acceptable for whatever reason (too late, didn't follow State process, etc) and the others are accepted (as happened) Or, it get's sent back to the State to confirm what set of Electors are the ones that count. If the can't determine, Congress decides.

The Feds have nothing to do with selecting of Electors. The GOP can't select Democrat Electors for their Party, but they have every right to select their own. At least in some States the GOP Chair put forward the alternate Electors. So, I don't get how if the Party submits alternate Electors it is undermining Democracy as it is their choice to make.

Also, there you go making all sorts of leaps to being behind something there is no proof he did.

---

There were no alternate electors. Each state certified a single slate.

---

LOL. Wrong. Each state elected TWO slates of electors, and only two slates of electors.

---

There may have been two slates of electors nominated, but only one was actually elected.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as to whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

---

no one, here or elsewhere, has said they were official. rather the opposite. indeed, the language of "alternate" explicitly ratifies and supports the concept of "official." Political conventions afford a seamless analogy: An alternate delegate to a political convention is elected IN CASE they are needed, in case an official delegate fails to show, in case an official delegate fails (for whatever reason) to be credentialed. That alternate delegate is real, was elected as such. And, more to the point, the existence of that alternate delegate does not impugn the official delegates, the official proceedings, or the convention (credentialing, caucusing, voting) itself.

Two slates of electors were elected by the voters in each of the 50 states. One was certified by executive action (based on state legislative statute authorized by Federal Constitution) as "official." Turning to the "alternate" slate should the "official" slate fail to be credentialed by Congress is an appropriate consideration to take, completely respectful of elections. of voters. of traditions. of democracy. One must either use them or go back to the respective state legislators for a solution, or simply not have the voters of that state participate in the EV process.

It is the neverTrumpers who are creating all the stress here, using misinformation to depict every constituent piece of the legal process that Trump used to contest the election as insurrection.

Disgusting. Porteroso's post above is far more destructive of social contract than anything Trump did. Why, we cannot disagree with him without being insurrectionists.

Liaroso: "Trump's main crime is violating his oath of office. "

BS. Compared to his predecessor, Trump did a much better job of keeping his oath.

All you have is blowing mood into imagined felonies.

Go suck a lemon and figure out who you will replace Biden with for your 2024 nominee.

Whiterock: "It is the neverTrumpers who are creating all the stress here, using misinformation to depict every constituent piece of the legal process that Trump used to contest the election as insurrection.


Disgusting. Porteroso's post above is far more destructive of social contract than anything Trump did. Why, we cannot disagree with him without being insurrectionists."

Completely agree. You don't have to agree with Trump on everything or even like him, to recognize this committee is an offence to our Constitutional Republic. Using years of taxpayer resources in an endless effort to smear Trump is unconscionable.

And the funny thing is, given his age, the stress of a campaign and doing the job, Trump may well decide to sit out the 2024 election as a candidate, preferring to play Kingmaker instead.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Whiterock: "It is the neverTrumpers who are creating all the stress here, using misinformation to depict every constituent piece of the legal process that Trump used to contest the election as insurrection.


Disgusting. Porteroso's post above is far more destructive of social contract than anything Trump did. Why, we cannot disagree with him without being insurrectionists."

Completely agree. You don't have to agree with Trump on everything or even like him, to recognize this committee is an offence to our Constitutional Republic. Using years of taxpayer resources in an endless effort to smear Trump is unconscionable.

And the funny thing is, given his age, the stress of a campaign and doing the job, Trump may well decide to sit out the 2024 election as a candidate, preferring to play Kingmaker instead.

---

"....if the J6 investigation is about rule of law, where's the defense team?..."

ordinary people can see the sophistry at play. the neverTrumpers are quite detached from reality to a degree that is truly astounding.

CNN goes to Wyoming to ask voters if they're gonna vote for #LizCheney...

Hilarity ensues. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 pic.twitter.com/vycOAhA1dd

— Joe Dan Gorman🇺🇸 #UltraMAGA 1776 (@ThatJoeDanGuy) July 30, 2022

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as to whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

---

no one, here or elsewhere, has said they were official. rather the opposite. indeed, the language of "alternate" explicitly ratifies and supports the concept of "official." Political conventions afford a seamless analogy: An alternate delegate to a political convention is elected IN CASE they are needed, in case an official delegate fails to show, in case an official delegate fails (for whatever reason) to be credentialed. That alternate delegate is real, was elected as such. And, more to the point, the existence of that alternate delegate does not impugn the official delegates, the official proceedings, or the convention (credentialing, caucusing, voting) itself.

Two slates of electors were elected by the voters in each of the 50 states. One was certified by executive action (based on state legislative statute authorized by Federal Constitution) as "official." Turning to the "alternate" slate should the "official" slate fail to be credentialed by Congress is an appropriate consideration to take, completely respectful of elections. of voters. of traditions. of democracy. One must either use them or go back to the respective state legislators for a solution, or simply not have the voters of that state participate in the EV process.

It is the neverTrumpers who are creating all the stress here, using misinformation to depict every constituent piece of the legal process that Trump used to contest the election as insurrection.

Disgusting. Porteroso's post above is far more destructive of social contract than anything Trump did. Why, we cannot disagree with him without being insurrectionists.

---

Your post exemplifies the vagueness that I referred to. No one has said the alternate slates were official, yet the very language of "alternate" ratifies and supports the concept of "official." What does this even mean? It's self-contradictory nonsense.

Your claim that two slates were elected by the voters is equally incomprehensible. Each party had a slate. Each state chose one of the them. The "alternate" selection was made by a handful of legislators, in complete disregard of the voters. Disgusting indeed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Liaroso: "Trump's main crime is violating his oath of office. "

BS. Compared to his predecessor, Trump did a much better job of keeping his oath.

All you have is blowing mood into imagined felonies.

Go suck a lemon and figure out who you will replace Biden with for your 2024 nominee.

---

Reading isn't as hard as you make it seem. Or did you quote the wrong post?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

xxx yyy said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Once the Electoral College has met and every state's election has been certified, there is no constitutional provision for an "alternate slate" of electors. A group of people who gather in a room and claim they are electors, as state-party-backed Republicans did in a few states on Monday, have no more authority than if the people reading this article decided that they, too, wanted to be members of the Electoral College.
So while Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan followed the White House's lead, making or discussing moves to form their own competing slates of pro-Trump electors, it was a theatrical effort with no legal pathway. Electoral College slates are tied to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and all five of those states have certified their results in favor of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The most the Republicans could do was claim a symbolic moment, saying that the people who showed up would have been the slates of electors had President Trump won those states. But since he lost them, and numerous state and federal courts have rejected his and his allies' baseless claims of voting fraud, these groups have no actual significance.


Is this correct?

---

it is an opinion. Other legal and constitutional scholars disagree with it.

Those people were in fact electors chosen by the state to represent Donald Trump just like the others that were the electors chosen by the state to represent Joe Biden. They are not the same as you and I the reader sending a note to washington. What they did was not illegal and ultimately had no bearing on the process beyand doing what needed to be done at the time. Both sets being sent is not an issue and is in fact necessary if the state is in question and the results could change. They would be thrown out at the fed level reading because they are not certified by the state and they were..

If they were not sent and the state changed its mind, that could get messy as well since the rules state electors have to be submitted by a certain date.

The states stood firm, the non certified elector sets were discarded as written in the proceedure and Biden is president.

Now, if we want to talk about all the states that certified elections that used rules other than those passed by the state legislature as required by federal election law. That would be fun. We are seeing them slowly being Unwound and hopefully going forward, they will be codified by the legislature or people will fight to make sure only the state legislature rules are used.

---

In a scenario where, say, the PA slate certified by the PA executive branch were rejected by Congress, one possible remedy would be for the PA legislature to exercise powers explicitly implied in the Constitution to ratify a new slate, which in this particular scenario would almost certainly be the extant (aka "alternate") GOP slate of electors.

So "alternate slates" of electors are real. They exist. Whether the PA legislative branch could take action to substitute them for the slate of electors certified by PA executive is an open question that does not require "insurrection" to resolve.

---

As I said, I view this as political strategy, not criminal proceedings. Especially since the VP didn't accept the alternate electors. One more strategy that was floated and not executed. As with every strategy, some like it. Some don't. Obviously, the VP (whose decision it was) did not feel comfortable and certified. I still see nothing wrong. NOW, if Trump created forged documents that were falsely signed and he directed it, than you may have an issue. But if everyone that signed thought it was a legit path and took part, I don't see how there is a criminal culpability.

---

The problem I have with the "false electors" is the efforts to promote them run against the very basis of our representative government and the Constitution. When a state certifies an election, it recognizes the "winning" electors who represent the will of the people of that state. Losing electors have no standing as they do not represent the will of the people as shown in the certified election.

The Election Counting Act of 1887 prohibits
Making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure is a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements.

Promoting a slate of false electors--in defiance of the State's Governor-- could be construed as such a false writing, imo.

---

they would be false documents if they were presented as the elector slate certified by the state.. were they?

---

Two states made them contingent on certification, while the remainder did not. How they're presented in debate depends on which stage of the operation Trump's supporters are trying to justify. At the state level, they would have you believe the documents were only meant to take effect if the states concluded that the original certifications were erroneous. Therefore, they argue, the documents were submitted in good faith. Of course the states concluded the opposite, which means the alternative documents were irrelevant. At the federal level, Trump and his lawyer ignored this fact and argued that "7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate." In other words, now we're supposed to treat the documents as if they were certified. This is the only way to invoke Pence's authority to either decide which votes to count, have the House decide through a vote, or put it to a vote in the joint session, which would result in a stalemate and throw the issue back to the state legislatures.

The last of these three strategies was considered the most workable, and it's the one that Whiterock advocated above. The fact that the state legislatures' authority is uncertain in this area is the least of its flaws. Most obviously, the vice president has no authority to unilaterally reject votes. Otherwise no election would ever be safe. To get the issue back to the state legislatures, you first have to ignore the Electoral Count Act's provision that the votes "regularly given by the electors" are the ones that must be counted. Then you have to ignore the ECA's provision that, in case of disagreement between the two houses, the votes under the seal of the governor must be counted. Finally, you have to ignore the ECA's time limit, which only allows two hours for the joint session to decide on objections.

So to go back to your original question, Trumpists are necessarily vague as to whether the "alternate" slates were presented as official. They have to slither between two positions in order to avoid fraud on the one hand and failure on the other. And even with the certificates in hand, there was no legitimate path to victory.

---

no one, here or elsewhere, has said they were official. rather the opposite. indeed, the language of "alternate" explicitly ratifies and supports the concept of "official." Political conventions afford a seamless analogy: An alternate delegate to a political convention is elected IN CASE they are needed, in case an official delegate fails to show, in case an official delegate fails (for whatever reason) to be credentialed. That alternate delegate is real, was elected as such. And, more to the point, the existence of that alternate delegate does not impugn the official delegates, the official proceedings, or the convention (credentialing, caucusing, voting) itself.

Two slates of electors were elected by the voters in each of the 50 states. One was certified by executive action (based on state legislative statute authorized by Federal Constitution) as "official." Turning to the "alternate" slate should the "official" slate fail to be credentialed by Congress is an appropriate consideration to take, completely respectful of elections. of voters. of traditions. of democracy. One must either use them or go back to the respective state legislators for a solution, or simply not have the voters of that state participate in the EV process.

It is the neverTrumpers who are creating all the stress here, using misinformation to depict every constituent piece of the legal process that Trump used to contest the election as insurrection.

Disgusting. Porteroso's post above is far more destructive of social contract than anything Trump did. Why, we cannot disagree with him without being insurrectionists.

---

There is no legal way for the President to throw out the vote of the people and be dictator. You are so adamant that your demigod leader of glory be guiltless, you are trying to claim that bullying the Vice President, or the state government of Georgia, into throwing out certified vote tallies is legal. Show me how that works in your social contract. I don't believe the founding fathers gave a sitting President the power to continue in office in opposition to the vote of the people, but they did give you the right to blow xsmoke out the dirty end, which you are fully exercising, to your credit.