If you can’t rapidly repeat the thread title several times in a row, you are part of the problem.
I memorized a – what – 7,000 character URL that you offered up in another thread. Is there no pleasing you ?
[The Sixth Sick Shiek’s Sixth Sheep’s Sick]
Couldn’t then any member of the House or Senate appeal from the decision of the chair and ask for a roll call vote on Pence’s decision?
This may have been the plan, but the plain text of the ECA makes this plot illegal. Under the statutory process, the VP is essentially an automaton – he opens certificates, states their contents and hands them off to clerks. He has no authority to determine their validity. This was done deliberately by the law’s drafters, who were well aware that the VP would often be overseeing a session that would determine his own political future. Therefore, the law prescribes which documents must be regarded as the correct ones, and only Congress can dispute that through the mechanism I described.
Of course, if Pence did try this, what’s the redress? The ECA does not contemplate it and there’s no precedent. It’s also not clear whether and how members of Congress may raise points of order or move to overturn a ruling by the chair. A joint session of Congress is an odd beast, usually meant to be purely ceremonial and devoid of parliamentary procedures.
The legislation charges the VP to “preserve order” but it’s not clear whether that gives him or her authority to decide questions of order (although VPs have issued parliamentary rulings in past sessions). The statute also provides that no question is to be “put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw." And yet a joint session of Congress is still a session of Congress – I can’t imagine that Congress would be powerless to appeal and overturn a ruling by the chair, that’s a fundamental right of any legislative body.
I sure do. They literally had footage of these bozos holding their phony little votes. One took place in a parking lot.
I agree with this and I think that would be the ultimate solution to any hypothetical “the VP corruptly never permits a transfer of power” argument.
The one I remember is this, the alternate electors tried to enter the Michigan state capitol to make their vote, and were blocked from entry.
What’s interesting about the phon electoral vote submissions is they all look like the same person drew them up. If you look at the real kind, every state - as you would expect - has its own format for stating its electoral vote submissions.
It is worth noting that at least once, the doof who types these up mis-styles Pennsylvania as “the State of Pennsylvania” because he wasn’t clever enough to use control-H.
That is strong evidence that is was done by one of Trump’s people.
Not only that typo, but I believe the official EC certificates should state “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”, not “The State of Pennsylvania”.
I cannot imagine such ceremonially important, legally critical documents ever accidentally using the wrong styling.
It is extremely unlikely that an official document that basically gets recycled every four years with different names inserted would somehow flip from correct to incorrect styling… unless of course the “official document” is a forgery from an outsider.
Why are people calling these illegitimate slates of electors “forgeries”? They are slates of electors, exactly as they appear to be. The people who signed them are real people who really signed them.
They are illegitimate, fraudulent, and everything else you can say, but I just don’t see how they are forgeries.
Looking over my state’s (Texas) documents, the governor has to sign a document saying these are the electors. How did the perpetrators of the fraud plan on getting past that hurdle? What happens if the governor signs two different slates of electors?
I see your point; one would have to consult the specific definition of “forgery” in the state’s own criminal law, though.
It’s really not clear. They did not appear to have forged a governor’s signature, or a seal of the corresponding state.
I suppose it might be they were hoping the Republicans in Congress could pull something off.
Yes, true. It is also a coherent thought so also out of his wheelhouse. Does not matter we actually know who wrote up the plan, the attorney John Eastman. But Trump ceased the plan and tried to have it executed including the clumsy “I don’t want to be your friend if you don’t do this, Mike” comment.
Normally I would agree with this argument but I believe there are special circumstances here. First, we know that Trump KNOWS he is guilty and he also KNOWS that if he had won he would be spending most of his time ruining the lives of everyone who crossed him even a small amount (but from a position of huge power rather than how he is hounding them now). He would have had Hunter Biden arrested if he could, etc. – also like a Mafia boss, he has a salt the earth Old Testament mentality where rivals are concerned.
Second, he probably believes that this subject was too big to sweep under a rug later (which it should be). Of course he is going to pull out all the stops to defend himself. I postulate that he believed if he lost-- his papers would become public, his plan would be discovered, his plan would be transparent and lead to his ruin, etc., etc., etc. My second point is that was an all or nothing roll of the dice for him; he was forced to do things he would never normally do because failure meant death (not just bankruptcy or paying a settlement).
Third, we have a record of him telling Raffensperger to find votes. He has a pattern of trying to use illegal means to overturn election results. Trump was not taking the precautions of being usefully vague because he NEEDED, NEEDED the win.
Fourth, if you put a state Party Chair on the stand and say: “Why did you convene these electors, have them sign the document, then send the document to the Archivist?” Or: “Where did you get the template for the document you had executed and delivered to these officials?” They are going to answer because the Trump campaign wanted me to!
“Did they order you to do it?”
“No”
“Then how do you ‘know’ they wanted you to?”
“We discussed it.”
A good prosecutor will walk away with a conviction or a confession – or possibly a conviction for perjury if the slimy low level operatives try to lie their way out of it.
I do not see how this ever becomes a free political speech issue! This is a criminal matter from top to bottom; conspirators acted in unison to enact a result different from the results of a free and fair election.
“I believe the results are flawed” is probably always free speech (unless it can be proved to serve a criminal purpose).
“Create a false slate of electors then send them to governmental officials [to create doubt or a context for Pence to take steps which will lead to the House of Representatives deciding the election]” even if the quite part is not said out loud is a criminal conspiracy pure and simple.
I agree that Trump is an expert at avoiding responsibility for his actions. But he loses every damn time he goes to court- all we/the prosecutors need to do is get his sorry ass in a defendant’s seat and the rest will fall into place.
Last point, the orange shit flinger doesn’t have McConnell to cover his ass anymore because Trump no longer has any usefulness for McConnell. McConnell will not be the decider, the final arbitrator like he was during the impeachment proceedings. But more than that, he can abandon that guy to the wolves without damaging his power or his party and I am sure he is eager to do so.
They did use the official seal of the State of Arizona for that slate, and the Secretary of State sent them a sternly worded letter about unofficial use of the seal.
I believe our (Arizona) slate of electors is signed by both the Governor and the Secretary of State. I seem to recall video footage of them at opposite ends of a table or desk signing for about eight reporters and the perhaps one TV camera.
I believe I read in another thread that the law in question (federal- state laws vary) requires the slate of electors to come from the correct sanctioning official of each state or commonwealth. So if the governor is who sends them in by state law only the ones from the governor are officially “official”. In states where the Secretary of State is the authoritative office they must come from the S.S., etc.
Even at that, it would depend on the exact wording. If I have a document that says, “Ultravires declares that the State of Georgia has appointed the following electors…all of whom cast their votes for Donald Trump” then that is not illegitimate nor fraudulent. It is worth exactly what is stated on its face, and all are able to determine the legal significance of my declaration.
The only thing missing would be the signature of Epstein’s mom.
Or, what happens if it’s a GQP governor who refuses to sign the legit slate and signs the bogus one instead?