RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Exactly. Like we have been told our entire lives, shut up and let the left dictate.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

I'm fascinated with the "destroying democracy" narrative when it was the disruption of a non democratic process which was specifically put in place to help thwart the dangers of democracy.

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

"When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard. "

Ha Ha, I think there will be a significant number of people not voting Republican if he runs on the Republican ticket. If Trump runs as an Independent he will split the conservative vote and the Democrats could win as happened with Ross Perot a number of elections ago

---

anything can happen, but smart money would be on a Trump/DeSantis ticket, so I'd advise not letting your hopes unduly affect your analysis.

---

Those are not hopes, it is merely an analysis. A unified Democratic party can beat a split Republican party in a Presidential election.

Another factor that I find alarming is the overturn of "Roe vs Wade" has energized the Democratic party. That could very well have an effect on the upcoming elections.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

"When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard. "

Ha Ha, I think there will be a significant number of people not voting Republican if he runs on the Republican ticket. If Trump runs as an Independent he will split the conservative vote and the Democrats could win as happened with Ross Perot a number of elections ago

---

anything can happen, but smart money would be on a Trump/DeSantis ticket, so I'd advise not letting your hopes unduly affect your analysis.

---

Those are not hopes, it is merely an analysis. A unified Democratic party can beat a split Republican party in a Presidential election.


Another factor that I find alarming is the overturn of "Roe vs Wade" has energized the Democratic party. That could very well have an effect on the upcoming elections.

---

nope, polling disagrees.. it has actually energized the GOP voters

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

...and applied for a job with his team after his term ended.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

...and applied for a job with his team after his term ended.

---

but she testified she quit after Jan 6th right?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

...and applied for a job with his team after his term ended.

---

but she testified she quit after Jan 6th right?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

...and applied for a job with his team after his term ended.

---

but she testified she quit after Jan 6th right?

---

No.

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks after he left the White House, government records show..

---

...and applied for a job with his team after his term ended.

---

but she testified she quit after Jan 6th right?

---

the funniest thing is that the people pushing the J6 cmee think they are being productive.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2022/have_j6_committee_hearings_moved_the_needle

---

Guy Noir said:

---

"The GOP is not divided. It is united around Trump. Strongly so. And his only viable competitor is a candidate of the same mold - Trump 2.0 - but trailing too far back to be a threat. The two candidates command +80% of the vote per polling. THAT is what a unified party looks like."

I do not think that is an objective assessment of the political climate.

The 80+% of the polling looks pretty far out of line. The attacks on traditional republicans such as Cheney, Pence, Romney, McCain followers, and others that voted to impeach Trump is a definite example of a split in the party. You better wake up, you are tearing the party apart with your narrow perspective.

I think the fall out from the overturning of Roe Vs Wade will hang around for a while. I noticed that Kansas passed a Pro-choice bill with a large voter turnout for this referendum. This was on August 2, 2022. We will need to wait and see to find out if the frenzy dies out quickly. The Democratic Party does not have many positive accomplishments to campaign, so I would not be surprised if they used the woman's right to chose issue, to deflect from the dismal results caused by the Biden Administration.

Correction: The Kansas bill was to allow the State to constitutionally regulate abortion. The amendment was voted down.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

"The GOP is not divided. It is united around Trump. Strongly so. And his only viable competitor is a candidate of the same mold - Trump 2.0 - but trailing too far back to be a threat. The two candidates command +80% of the vote per polling. THAT is what a unified party looks like."

I do not think that is an objective assessment of the political climate.

The 80+% of the polling looks pretty far out of line. The attacks on traditional republicans such as Cheney, Pence, Romney, McCain followers, and others that voted to impeach Trump is a definite example of a split in the party. You better wake up, you are tearing the party apart with your narrow perspective.

I think the fall out from the overturning of Roe Vs Wade will hang around for a while. I noticed that Kansas passed a Pro-choice bill with a large voter turnout for this referendum. This was on August 2, 2022. We will need to wait and see to find out if the frenzy dies out quickly. The Democratic Party does not have many positive accomplishments to campaign, so I would not be surprised if they used the woman's right to chose issue, to deflect from the dismal results caused by the Biden Administration.

Correction: The Kansas bill was to allow the State to constitutionally regulate abortion. The amendment was voted down.

---

As it should be. State issue, State determination.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee convicted trump yet of doing something to the effect of throwing a ketchup bottle?
Who got Emmy nods?

---

Guy Noir said:

---

"The GOP is not divided. It is united around Trump. Strongly so. And his only viable competitor is a candidate of the same mold - Trump 2.0 - but trailing too far back to be a threat. The two candidates command +80% of the vote per polling. THAT is what a unified party looks like."

I do not think that is an objective assessment of the political climate.

The 80+% of the polling looks pretty far out of line. The attacks on traditional republicans such as Cheney, Pence, Romney, McCain followers, and others that voted to impeach Trump is a definite example of a split in the party. You better wake up, you are tearing the party apart with your narrow perspective.

I think the fall out from the overturning of Roe Vs Wade will hang around for a while. I noticed that Kansas passed a Pro-choice bill with a large voter turnout for this referendum. This was on August 2, 2022. We will need to wait and see to find out if the frenzy dies out quickly. The Democratic Party does not have many positive accomplishments to campaign, so I would not be surprised if they used the woman's right to chose issue, to deflect from the dismal results caused by the Biden Administration.

Correction: The Kansas bill was to allow the State to constitutionally regulate abortion. The amendment was voted down.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yeah, sure

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yeah, sure

---

There was a language teacher that said "If a double negative is stated, it converts the meaning to a positive. However, there is no example where a double positive becomes a negative" Oldbear83 spoke from the back of the classroom
"Yeah, sure".

---

Guy Noir said:

---

I did not misread the Kansas vote.

I am not sure of what you are insinuating. Pro-choice is a term associated with preserving a woman's right to choose whether she gets an abortion or not. If a state chooses to not legislate or restrict this behavior then it is pro-choice. The proposal was an attempt to change the state constitution to allow legislation regarding abortion. The proposal was confusing, but it was an attempt to clear a legal pathway to regulate abortion. The proposal was voted down thus in Kansas the choice to get an abortion is still in play (eg pro-choice).

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I gave a clear example of how the word "alternate" is part of process, supportive process, the furthest thing from the vague flim-flammery you're peddling here.

Your second paragraph is wrong, and purposely so. Two slates were elected by voters in each of the 50 states under statutes passed by each of the 50 legislatures. Certification of one slate, again pursuant to state statute, does not dissolve the other slate. Considering that remaining other slate as an alternate slate, should the certified slate be rejected at the federal level is plainly supportive of process, part of an on-shelf, voter-approved option to ensure no state is deprived of participation in the Electoral College. To portray such deliberations/discussions for how to remedy election irregularities as insurrection is exactly the kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric you claim Trump uses.

When Trump wins in 2024, I would advise that you not question a single step taken along the way to the Electoral College, lest you be hoisted by your own insurrection petard.

---

Like it or not, electors are chosen by popular vote. Two candidates can't both win a majority. Considering the slate chosen by the minority as an alternate in case the certified slate was rejected would be one thing if they were waiting on a legitimate process. But Trump's efforts in court had all been defeated. Pence had no power to reject the votes. The process they claimed to rely on did not and does not exist.

---

It is good that you've folded your tent on portraying Team Trump's deliberations on possible use of alternate slates as evidence of insurrection. But now you've erected a new falsehood - that attempting to get the EVs rejected up to the final moment is evidence of insurrection. It is not, and you know it. Due process/rule of law considerations do allow one to argue and test a case without reflexive risk of punishment for losing the case.

Insurrection is about replacing one political order with a different one, by force rather than process. Testing the limits of what procedures allow is an ocean away from insurrection. By definition, such is supportive of that process, respectful of the importance of that process.

But you have your Reichstag Fire, and we see what you are doing with it.

---

An insurrection is a violent uprising against the government. Nothing more, nothing less. It need not represent a grand ideological shift. Nor has anyone suggested that it's a mere matter of procedure. You're obviously eager to make that argument at the earliest opportunity, but you'll find no precedent for it in my posts. What you will find is a simple statement of the law: corruptly obstructing the transfer of power by threats, fraud, or intimidation is different from good faith testing of procedural limits. It is and always has been. You can twist the law until you're tied up in knots, and then twist some more, but nothing will change the substance of the thing.

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

The following is your post from another thread. Looks like Democrats adopted your "win at all costs, character doesn't matter" approach. They followed your plan to its logical end and then Trump used the same tactic on Jan 6.

From Whiterock:
I want elected officials who have certain philosophical beliefs and are committed to executing them into policy, relentlessly, at every opportunity, no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs....to burn the might oil to find a plausible way to weave together millions of words of constitutional structure and statutory code and judicial interpretation into a pathway to get the right things done, tempered only by notions what will pass judicial review. (insert Churchillian "never give up" language here). And the older I get, the more I detest the political virtue posture....something which if indulged in as a matter of habit can itself beg questions about character (because it is so often used to appear to be doing something when one is not).

---