DEVELOPING: Justice Department Seeking to Question Mike Pence in its Criminal Investigation Into January 6 SPECIAL COUNSEL

GP ^ | 11/23/2022 | Cristina Laila

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "It is ludicrous for members of Congress from Texas (for example) to object to electoral votes certified by Pennsylvania"
Why?

[Alberta's Child]

1. I’ve been ignoring your silly posts about “11” House members because I have already demonstrated that every House measure subject to a vote that day — INCLUDING THE VOTES ON THE OBJECTIONS — had somewhere around 400 votes on it.

2. Which implies you believe covid rules given by bureaucratic and not approved by legislators where regular circumstances? The “irregular circumstances” issues had to be addressed before the electoral vote certification in December, and had to be done within the individual states.

Item #2 is critical. Those state legislatures didn’t do their damn jobs. That’s not anyone else’s problem outside those states.

[Alberta's Child]

Texas filed a lawsuit to block the electoral vote certification process in other states — on the grounds that the voting processes in those states did not conform to what the legislatures of those states had required under the law.

Meanwhile, Governor Abbott of Texas authorized the use of ballot drop boxes in Texas — in direct violation of Texas law — for the same 2020 election. So by the standards laid out in the Texas lawsuit, TEXAS should not have had its electoral votes count in the 2020 presidential election.

This is one of many reasons why the Texas lawsuit went nowhere. Look up the common law “doctrine of unclean hands” to see how this works.

[StAnDeliver]

Well, time to drop the knowledge hammer again.

First, who was properly responsible for the clarion call to investigate the 2020 election fraud? President Donald J. Trump:

• Trump knew this. He had been advised of his Article II power from Day One, by everyone from Bannon to Kushner:

  "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." - The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 3

• The authority, and the responsibility for rejecting elector slates, and demanding state legislatures send new elector slates consistent with investigations into electoral fraud, resided solely with President Trump.

• There is no Constitutional mechanism to permit the Vice-President to make such a claim. That power -- if it indeed exists -- lies solely with the Office of the President. Any such attempt by the VP would be duly and properly ignored.

• As President Lincoln once promised, leaning into Congressman James Alley, "I am the President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes!" What Lincoln did not say, was: "Vice-President Johnson is clothed with immense power, and I expect him to procure those votes!"

• In April 2020, President Trump threatened to dismiss Congress over blocking him from recess appointments. President Trump believed he had that power -- the exact same power he would have used to remand the presented elector's slates back to each state's legislature -- and Trump believed that power was invested in him alone. President Trump didn't call VP Pence and say, "Hey Mike, you tell them you're shutting down Congress because I can't get my recess appointments."

[StAnDeliver]

Secondly...

Where were any 'alternate' slates of Electors with the imprimatur of both that state's legislature and signed off by that state's Governor?

• Even if Pence had had that, the House and the Senate must both vote in the majority to throw out the original Electors of any challenged state's slate.

• The fact that 1 Congressman and 1 Senator, can initially object to every electoral slate (50 states + DC) is not enough to actually disqualify that state's slate. The objection, in order to succeed, must have both the House & Senate majority votes to disqualify the original slate.

• There is nothing in 3USC nor 12A nor the Electoral Count Act [which (a) has been ruled constitutional; and (b) the Eastman 'memo' farcically sought to overthrow], that allows any incumbent VP to act extra-constitutionally.

• FRacebook rage fails as usual to comprehend the complete absence of any enabling Constitutional language that would have permitted Pence to act in a completely unconstitutional manner.

• What a limp minority of FRacebookers really wanted Pence to do, was perform errant Libtard Constructionalism a la WisePuta/Elanaesbian, in treating the Constitution like a "Living Document" DOORMAT.

  ---

• As if this needs to be added -- and yet it does -- so far have we fallen that the FreeRepublic Mission Statement must be a stake in the ground yet again in this thread:

  "Free Republic advocates a return to constitutionally limited government, reserving all government powers not expressly delegated by the constitution to the United States to the States respectively, or the people, emphasizing sovereign state governments, local government, self-government and self-rule, while restricting government powers to only those enumerated in the Constitution."

  ---

• Had the mouth-breathing, daydrinking FRacebook FReeptard cadre and their demented, blatantly unconstitutional rule-by-fiat had been followed just four years earlier in 2016, the Democrats' objections to every single state's electoral slate would have successfully pre-empted President Trump's legitimate victory.

• On Jan. 6, 2017, the Democrats planned -- to the minute -- a challenge of every single state's slate of electors, and they executed their plan to the letter, with longtime Leftard Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objecting right out of the gate to Alabama's slate of electors, citing "direct Russian election interference via hacking the election software of VR Systems".

• McGovern's challenge was immediately followed by challenges from Marxist fellow travelers Raskin, then Jayapal, then Sheboon Lee, then Grijalva.

• This, in early 2017, would have been the result, the very result our Founding Fathers fought and died to prevent when they crafted the Constitution:

"Mr. McGovern has objected to the Alabama slate due to the "confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia". Mr. Raskin has objected to Florida’s slate, due to that state's prohibition against dual office holders. Ms. Jayapal has objected to the Georgia slate's electoral certification. Ms. Lee has objected to the Michigan slate again due to Russian interference. Mr. Grijalva has objected to the North Carolina slate due to violations of the Voting Rights Act. I find all of these objections in due order and I hereby as Vice-President suspend each of these state's elector slates until further investigation by the DOJ and the FBI, and I further order each state involved, to prepare, certify, and send an alternate slate of electors. Trump's Inauguration can wait forever, as far as I'm concerned. We are adjourned." - Vice-President Joseph Biden, January 6, 2017

• After then-VP Biden -- in identical fashion to what FRacebookers wanted from VP Pence -- had ruled every challenged 2016 electoral slate "out of order" -- despite the fact that the GOP held the House and Senate in 2016 and thus could and did prevent constitutionally, any Alternate Electoral Slates -- Hillary would have still been installed shortly after SCOTUS surrendered under the weight of 51 challenge cases, only requiring SCOTUS to respond positively to Vice-President Biden's challenges to the 3 critical, close swing-state cases [PA, MI, WI] that would have immediately floated to the top of the unconstitutionally slate-challenged Electoral College bowl.

  The fact that FRacebookers are even still sticking their face into the fan blade as they bleat bleat bleat for unconstitutional actions that a zombie like Joe Biden could have used to deny Donald Trump the presidency in 2016, or that Heels Up could use to deny Donald Trump the presidency in 2024, is proof positive that some of you need to quit parading your ignorance.

[Alberta's Child]

Bump to the top. Perfect, comprehensive assessment of the situation.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Those state legislatures didn’t do their damn jobs (which directly effects other states)"

Yes.

Clean hands argument is irrelevant as we couldn't put anyone in jail given no one is pure.

[Alberta's Child]

“Clean hands” argument is directly applicable in a CIVIL court case.

And the “doctrine of unclean hands” is specifically applicable only where the “unclean hands” relate only to the matter at hand. So if you are an auto mechanic and I pay you $500 to fix my car, if you don’t do the job right I have no legal grounds to sue you if I paid you in counterfeit bills.

[Alberta's Child]

“Those state legislatures didn’t do their damn jobs (which directly effects other states)”

That is a terrible argument to make in support of a legal challenge in an election. The Federal courts did America a huge favor by dismissing all those legal challenges on the basis that the states filing the lawsuits lacked standing to challenge the election procedures in other states. Any Federal court that took up such a case and ruled on it would inevitably be forced to abrogate the authority of state governments and establish uniform voting standards across the entire country. And I can assure you that the national standard would be the loosest, fraud-prone processes of states like California and Washington — not a tight standard at all.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"There is no Constitutional mechanism to permit the Vice-President to make such a claim"

Again. the President of the Senate Or as you call the VP presents objections.

The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given."
Referring to the Covid rules given by bureaucratic and not approved by legislators. In other words. Where regular circumstances used during this vote?
Second part the House and Senate in a joint session set up stacked vote by omitting a legal majority by either.
Perpetrated by the speaker of the house.
A point of order was requested over the highly irregular stacked vote. The President of the Senate didn't seem to understand his question as he cited "no debate was allowed." Which suggest he was in on the stacked vote or a moron.

The rest of your post. I can only talk about what powers they do have not what they don't have. Which is pointless.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Federal courts did America a huge favor by dismissing all those legal challenges on the basis that the states filing the lawsuits lacked standing to challenge the election procedures in other states"

I agree. That should've been brought up by the legislators on Jan 6 and 7th. Which they did and the president of the Senate allowed a stacked vote against them and a false flag that disrupted the objection.

president of the Senate had two jobs which was to set up an orderly meeting an make sure a legal vote take place.
I believe he intentionally failed on both accounts.

Here was the real set up. After Jan 6 Trump should've taken the stacked vote issue to the supreme court. But he couldn't as "his" people are the ones accused of disrupting the objections.

[Alberta's Child]

After Jan 6 Trump should've taken the stacked vote issue to the supreme court.

He didn’t take it to the Supreme Court because he would have been laughed out of the courtroom over his inability to explain what the hell a “stacked vote” is. Do you really think there was a single member of the Senate or House who would testify that he/she was forced to vote a certain way against his or her wishes? LOL.

You are delusional, dude.

[Steve Van Doorn]

what the hell a “stacked vote” is.

Taken from Stack the deck from cards.
Its a way restricting representatives vote.
It's an ancient way of gaming the system.

Again. if the vote didn't go their way. They could've simply said,
"those votes are not recognized"

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Do you really think there was a single member of the Senate or House who would testify that he/she was forced to vote a certain way against his or her wishes? "

I don't believe you read or maybe comprehend my posts. I never Implied anything like that.

[StAnDeliver]

"After Jan 6 Trump should've taken the stacked vote issue to the supreme court."

This is as unfortunately intentionally impossibly imparseably oblique 'assertion' -- and I'm being kind -- almost identical to another Freeper in another one of these ridiculous threads, who insisted that J6 was void due to "general nonconformity to statutory law."

The upshot is that, as a matter of historical fact, not opinion, Pence approved the 1+1 Objection to the AZ elector slate just before everyone was moved down to the subway -- where Pence was ensconsed in the DC Congressional subway with more security than probably anyone other than Trump -- and Pence approved the 1+1 Objection to the PA elector slate after they returned once the protestor tours were concluded, rejecting enormous pressure to simply ignore the PA challenge, which ensued long after midnight.

[Alberta's Child]

I have read your posts, and they sort of come across as the rantings of a lunatic.

How do you “stack” a 400-25 (for example) vote? Are there 195+ members of Congress who would have voted differently in a “legitimate” vote?

Who are they? Where are their complaints about the process documented?

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "(stacking the vote on) J6 was void due to "general nonconformity to statutory law."

you're conflating two different votes. The stacking the vote was with Regard to the objection made which was a valid objection do you not agree?

The Objection made which was, "all of the known circumstances, regularly given."
Referring to the Covid rules given by bureaucratic and not approved by legislators.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "How do you “stack” a 400-25 (for example) vote?"
This is a point of order issue.
Meaning how the vote was accepted. 11 republicans in the house and 11 republicans from the Senate (joint session) where allowed to vote legally. All other "votes are not recognized" if the speaker of the house (regarding house vote) or president of the senate (regarding Senate vote) choose.

The president of the senate did allow the stacked vote of the objection to proceed which I believe could've been taken to the US supreme court. Which I'm positive the court would agree with Trump on this issue. EXCEPT for one major detail. The vote that was continued was interpreted "officially" by Trumps people entering the building when the guards unlocked the doors.

in other words there was a coup d'état that took place when those people entered the open doors. They interrupted the objection vote process. Eliminating Trumps chance to clean up our election process.

[StAnDeliver]

Read:

• Prof. Stephen A. Siegal, "THE CONSCIENTIOUS CONGRESSMAN’S GUIDE TO THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT OF 1887" [ PDF ]

  And then...

• Prof. Derek T. Muller, "ELECTORAL VOTES REGULARLY GIVEN" [ PDF ]

If you read both of those cover to cover, then you will understand the constitutional limits on the meeting of the Electoral College.

IF you choose not to read and enlighten yourself, then we're done, and then my takeaway is that you voted for Pence -- twice.

[Alberta's Child]

Why don’t you answer my last two questions now. Otherwise, what you’ve just posted there is gibberish.