If that was so then why bother getting the legal advice at all? Why not just do your job in the conventional manner that everyone expects you to do? Based on Quayle’s testimony it sounded like he was really trying to see if there wasn’t possibly some loophole that would let him do what Trump wanted.
There was, but Quayle spelled it loophol.
Either that or cover to protect the expected blow back from the “Hang Mike Pence” crowd.
To ensure he could be considered on the right side of history for his “legacy” and his prospects.
Why put on your CV indelibly that you are the guy who willingly overturned convention for expediency if you had aspirations to run for that office?
I think it was a purely legalistic decision.
Pence reminds me of someone I used to know. He was fanatical about the Constitution, irrespective of morals. If someone had managed to pass an amendment requiring people to strangle a kitten on alternate Tuesdays, he would have done so without hesitation. Then he would have stopped when it was repealed.
Had there been any way at all for Pence to legally interfere with the election, he would have done so. He was simply assured that this wasn’t the case, so he dropped it. I doubt he gave a thought to whether it was a “bad” thing to do or not.
In this instance, we can be glad for Pence’s dedication the letter of the law. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking his actions were influenced by any other kind of morality.
His excuses as to why he is going to fight Jack Smith’s subpoena make me think he doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution. It’s a handy tool to twist to his ends. The same as people like him use the bible.
Agree.
OP here. After reading the posts, I can see that I should have added a fourth choice, to wit:
- He thought it wasn’t in his best interest.
That’s my pick now.
And Sid Meyer put him as the dead last leader you get if your score was absolutely terrible. Shows you what HE knew!
Maybe to try to cover his ass with the Trumpists?
He might even have thought at the time that it would cover his ass with Trump himself.
Indeed. The Speech and Debate Clause he is trying to invoke reads:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Given the obvious facts that 1)Pence is and was neither a Senator nor a Representative, 2)the events of January 6 cover not one, not two, but all three of the stated exceptions, and 3)the discussions to be investigated did not take place in either House, no one with an iota of respect for the Constitution would advance such a claim.
Remember when trump was speaking at the 1/6 rally, and told the crowd at one point something like: “…of course, if he doesn’t do the right thing we won’t like him quite as much.” I’ve only ever heard soundbites from the speech, so my question is: before the above statement, to what extent did he explain to the crowd just what exactly it was he wanted Pence to do? Did they understand how he was supposed to fuck up the counting procedure? I’m sure the transcript of the speech is out there somewhere but I don’t think I could bring myself to read it.
Yes, he explicitly said what he wanted Pence to do. It’s in this part of the speech (referring to John Eastman’s plan):
Then (lying that he would walk down with them),
And then (reiterating he wants Pence to reject some state’s certifications):
And (gratuitous insult):
And this how he wrapped it up (explicit call for action, if not directly violence):
You can read the whole unlined craziness here: Transcript of Trump's speech at rally before US Capitol riot | AP News
Su-u-ure you are. Forget it, I remember when Wilford Brimley said the same thing.
So, Pence was testifying yesterday. Apparently he pretty much confirmed everything he’d said in his book about his interactions with Trump. So, as far as we’ll ever be able to tell, the real reason Pence didn’t do what Trump wanted is that Pence honestly believed that it was illegal. Nothing Trump or any of his minions said was convincing to Pence.
Unintentional post.
I wonder if they would be allowed to question Quayle remotely? It would be interesting, but not so important (afaict) as to subpoena him.
So, my question for lawyer types is - is it illegal to ask someone to commit an illegal act that you believe is legal (or at least of dubious legality)? What if that person tells you it is illegal? What if you then ask them again?
Clearly instigating a mob to “influence” that person to do the deed they already told you they felt was illegal should be illegal, but I’m wondering if the direct act of even asking Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act could be illegal in and of itself. Or is there some sort of “reasonable person might believe it was legal” defense?
I dunno, I think the notion that Pence would have done it if he’d thought he could get away with it is a little dumb. We saw plenty of Republicans who sincerely criticized the attempts to overthrow the election, and it included plenty of them who have been total dicks in many other contexts.
They’re totally evil but I think it’s a mistake to assume they do it just for the sake of doing it. They really think they’re acting on principle and that’s what makes them fascists.
It seems likely to me that Pence was fine with a lot of other stuff Trump had done but really considered the electoral vote scheme to be beyond the pale.
So, what you’re asking is if someone tries to coerce someone else into comitting a crime, is the first person comitting a crime, even if they don’t think it’s a crime? IANAL, but I would think that is a crime.
Of course, TFG will claim one of his worthless and expendable lawyers told him it was OK, so he can throw that person under the bus and weasle out of any potential legal peril.
Well, after he consulted a bunch of people looking for ‘guidance’ on whether there is some legal way he could refuse to certify the EC votes as Trump directed. You know, instead of just saying, “No, I’ll follow my oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’ and complete this process according to procedure and democratic norms.” Of course, as you point out, Pence was completely fine with a bunch of other things that Trump did and said that were seemingly at odds with his stated Christian morality, general ethics, and good sense, so all indications are that Pence is a compliant little toe-rag up to the point that he was essentially being set up as a fall guy, and for once had enough sense to decline.
When James Danforth Quayle is lecturing you about your civil and ethical responsibility, the conclusion should have been obvious before you picked up the phone and asked the question.
Stranger