Why scarlet/HT are right and 3rdgen/wydileie are wrong

[wydileie]

All Pence had to do was pump the brakes on the process.  There was really no time for any thorough investigation, but just a scant review would have had Trump conceding even if he still felt that he was cheated.  There was no way Trump was going attempt a coup.  Unlike what was ran on him.  

A one sided "hearing" with no cross examination or countering evidence allowed in.  Now tell me that they are not absolutely terrified of this man.  There is waaaaaaaay more to this than an election or two.  This is the epitome of desperation.  There's likely more to this than most of us could fathom

What does “pump the brakes” look like constitutionally?  I mean that is his responsibility in that situation

A review of the individual state's processes.  f.e. Pennsylvania had serious constitutional issues.  Pence could have held off on accepting their electors with a review on what went on there.  There were legit issues at play here.  This committee, though, is doing its damndest to act as if Trump was trying to do something unheard of.  Challenges are part of the process.  Right Mr Thompson?  Right Mr Raskin?  etc....

Challenges are done by the states' themselves and Congress, not the VP.

[ScarletHayes]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US. That would freak the country out and turn us into a banana republic if the VP of the losing candidate can just stop the election of a President of the opposite party.

I mentioned that scant look would have been better than nothing.  There was no time for a real remedy, but there were legit concerns at play.  Look at this committee.  They are freaked the #### out.  They don't want anyone to EVER have the audacity to challenge one of their stolen (my opinion) elections ever again.

[Alabuckeye]

All Pence had to do was pump the brakes on the process.  There was really no time for any thorough investigation, but just a scant review would have had Trump conceding even if he still felt that he was cheated.  There was no way Trump was going attempt a coup.  Unlike what was ran on him.  

A one sided "hearing" with no cross examination or countering evidence allowed in.  Now tell me that they are not absolutely terrified of this man.  There is waaaaaaaay more to this than an election or two.  This is the epitome of desperation.  There's likely more to this than most of us could fathom

What does “pump the brakes” look like constitutionally?  I mean that is his responsibility in that situation

A review of the individual state's processes.  f.e. Pennsylvania had serious constitutional issues.  Pence could have held off on accepting their electors with a review on what went on there.  There were legit issues at play here.  This committee, though, is doing its damndest to act as if Trump was trying to do something unheard of.  Challenges are part of the process.  Right Mr Thompson?  Right Mr Raskin?  etc....

What you are asking for is drastically different than Raskins antics. Neither of those situations resulted in the VP suspending the process for any length of time

[ScarletHayes]

Challenges are done by the states' themselves and Congress, not the VP.

Did I say that?  He didn't have to immediately certify the electors though.  If it was decided there was no there there then that would have been that

[Hightop77]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

[Alabuckeye]

Like it or not….challenges were made in Pennsylvania. And ran thru the courts. Prior to 1/6. Pence canâ€t supercede the court system.

I listened to my first half hour of hearings yesterday. interesting the claim, backed up, that Meadows and Trump were pushing the Italian spy satellite story with the DoJ to get them to act.

Further Trump promised Sydney Powell heâ€d make her a special counsel to look into the voter fraud allegations. Her direct testimony under deposition

[Alabuckeye]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

[Hightop77]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

[wydileie]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US. That would freak the country out and turn us into a banana republic if the VP of the losing candidate can just stop the election of a President of the opposite party.

I mentioned that scant look would have been better than nothing.  There was no time for a real remedy, but there were legit concerns at play.  Look at this committee.  They are freaked the #### out.  They don't want anyone to EVER have the audacity to challenge one of their stolen (my opinion) elections ever again.

Congress had the ability to challenge the results. They didn't have enough votes. End of story. Pence had no power.

Can you even imagine what you guys would think if Biden had suspended electors and not ratified them in 2016 to give time for investigations into fraud? Yeah, you would have been off your rocker. You would be on here spouting how it's time to grab our guns and march on Washington, and I may have agreed with you.

[Alabuckeye]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

So, 20 months later we have no proof that the voting changes made in state legislatures (where the power belongs) were illegal. No think tank study , no Republican report. Yet we are going to ride a legal action, stipulated unethical for bad intent, and claim that Pence “should have done something”. Even when courts ruled 5 plus dozen times prior to his actions. 

nah. Not buying it. Pence isnâ€t at fault here

[wydileie]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

So, 20 months later we have no proof that the voting changes made in state legislatures (where the power belongs) were illegal. No think tank study , no Republican report. Yet we are going to ride a legal action, stipulated unethical for bad intent, and claim that Pence “should have done something”. Even when courts ruled 5 plus dozen times prior to his actions. 

nah. Not buying it. Pence isnâ€t at fault here

Judges actually have ruled that Secretaries of State changed rules against the law. The judges just ruled you can't nullify votes because the government does something dumb.

[Hightop77]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US.

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

So, 20 months later we have no proof that the voting changes made in state legislatures (where the power belongs) were illegal. No think tank study , no Republican report. Yet we are going to ride a legal action, stipulated unethical for bad intent, and claim that Pence “should have done something”. Even when courts ruled 5 plus dozen times prior to his actions. 

nah. Not buying it. Pence isnâ€t at fault here

The system failed because the Leftists don't care about protecting the integrity of it.  What was done by the Democrats including changing voting requirements and Zuckerberg spending half a billion dollars was extraordinary.  One side cannot limit itself to the old norms while the other side is dismantling the system to rig it.

[Alabuckeye]

You mean like how the Democrats changed voting procedures in various states to open the door for the cheating?

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

So, 20 months later we have no proof that the voting changes made in state legislatures (where the power belongs) were illegal. No think tank study , no Republican report. Yet we are going to ride a legal action, stipulated unethical for bad intent, and claim that Pence “should have done something”. Even when courts ruled 5 plus dozen times prior to his actions. 

nah. Not buying it. Pence isnâ€t at fault here

Judges actually have ruled that Secretaries of State changed rules against the law. The judges just ruled you can't nullify votes because the government does something dumb.

In which states?

[wydileie]

Were the changes made to voting procedures by state legislatures(some Republican controlled) illegal?  I wonâ€t argue unethical because I believe it was pushed in bad faith

Probably but in a situation like that, no court is going to stop everything and get to the bottom of it.  That is why Pence needed to do so.

So, 20 months later we have no proof that the voting changes made in state legislatures (where the power belongs) were illegal. No think tank study , no Republican report. Yet we are going to ride a legal action, stipulated unethical for bad intent, and claim that Pence “should have done something”. Even when courts ruled 5 plus dozen times prior to his actions. 

nah. Not buying it. Pence isnâ€t at fault here

Judges actually have ruled that Secretaries of State changed rules against the law. The judges just ruled you can't nullify votes because the government does something dumb.

In which states?

I know they have in Penn, I think Wisky, as well.

[ScarletHayes]

There isn't even any agreement from Constitutional scholars that Pence had such power to deny electors. Seems most were leaning to no, he didn't, and that the VP's role is largely ceremonial in nature.

Even if he did, you are talking about a major change in procedure, the likes of which have never been seen in the US. That would freak the country out and turn us into a banana republic if the VP of the losing candidate can just stop the election of a President of the opposite party.

I mentioned that scant look would have been better than nothing.  There was no time for a real remedy, but there were legit concerns at play.  Look at this committee.  They are freaked the #### out.  They don't want anyone to EVER have the audacity to challenge one of their stolen (my opinion) elections ever again.

Congress had the ability to challenge the results. They didn't have enough votes. End of story. Pence had no power.

Can you even imagine what you guys would think if Biden had suspended electors and not ratified them in 2016 to give time for investigations into fraud? Yeah, you would have been off your rocker. You would be on here spouting how it's time to grab our guns and march on Washington, and I may have agreed with you.

2016 wasnâ€t 2020.  2020 was a legit sh1t show under the pretense of Covid