If Mike Pence had sent the fraudulent electoral college ballots back to state legislatures for further review on J6

DC_Draino on Twitter X ^ | October 29, 2023 | DC_Draino

[DiogenesLamp]

How? What would you do?

Just what I said in my previous message. I would loudly announce that I would not participate in this corrupt process, and I would walk out.

It's important to taint the Biden corruption regime right from the beginning. The public needs to hear he is corrupt and so was his "election."

The News-media-liars wouldn't be able to cover it up. It would have gone down in the history books as a first.

[maddog55]

I’ll agree to that 🤣🤣🤣

[Political Junkie Too]

This is the link to the law as it existed in January 2021.

The two most glaring changes that were made in 2022 are:

1. Adding the section that "the role of the President of the Senate while presiding over the joint session shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties"
2. Changing the requirement to contest an electoral college vote from "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives" to "is signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators duly chosen and sworn and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives duly chosen and sworn"

Congress changed contesting Electoral College votes from one member of each chamber to 20 Senators and 87 Representatives to contest a state's electors.

Original Text (formatted by me for clarity):

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes,

which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A;

and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates;

and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote,

which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State;

but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law;

and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

-PJ

[Alberta's Child]

Designating a specific office inherently imbues that office with discretionary power.

No, it doesn't -- and I already proved that's the case by pointing out how the VP does not have discretionary power when he's functioning as the President of the Senate. If the VP had the power you claim he does, then he could unilaterally stop any bill from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote. That is ludicrous on its face. I don't know why you insist on going down this stupid road about "discretionary power" when the application of it would logically indicate that the VP would effectively have dictatorial powers.

And when we ask the question "What would George Washington Do?" The answer is obvious. He wouldn't go along with a corrupt election.

I can say with confidence that George Washington would have been repulsed by the idea that every mouth-breathing moron who reaches the age of 18 has the right to cast a vote in a presidential election on a silly "Election Day." I'm sure he wouldn't give a damn about what happened on this November "Election Day," and he'd only care about the certified electoral votes from the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) that were in his hands.

[Alberta's Child]

You are presenting this as though the legislators *CHOSE* not to do this, instead of presenting it as it actually occurred. They tried, but were blocked at every turn.

Every one of those legislators could have convened BEFORE Election Day and cast a vote for the state's electors.

Please provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that a state legislature "tried" to fix the election mess but was prevented from doing so.

In Georgia, the Governor wouldn't authorize a special session. Same thing in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania legislature convened for its 2021 session on January 5, 2021. There was nothing that prevented them from voting on a measure to withdraw the state's electors before the January 6th special session of Congress.

[Alberta's Child]

You name me a result that would be worse than what we have now. I'll wait.

I'm noticing a pattern with your posts on subjects like this.

When I present a rational example to demonstrate why something you insist is true isn't going to work, you just step back and tell me that I must explain why some alternative reality you support is worse than what we have now.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

You sound like one of those corruption deniers who believe Washington runs like it was designed to, laws are passed the same way they always have, politicians want what’s best for us and the media tells the truth. Corruption deniers like you are very dangerous and weird people.

It is Congress' privilege to object, debate and vote on whether to accept the slate of electors from each State, not the Vice President. And they did that. It would be corruption for the Vice President to usurp that role. I bet @DC_Draino and those of his ilk would have been just like those who supported Hitler dissolving the Reichstag. In short fascists.

[Alberta's Child]

It is Congress' privilege to object, debate and vote on whether to accept the slate of electors from each State ...

I don't believe that is true at all. That reflects the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the amended law passed in 2022, but both of these laws seem to be blatantly unconstitutional. As these laws are written, Congress could decide to reject a state's electors for any reason whatsoever -- which would conflict with the clear constitutional provisions of the Constitution for presidential elections.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it doesn't -- and I already proved that's the case by pointing out how the VP does not have discretionary power when he's functioning as the President of the Senate.

No you didn't. You just assert that this is true, and expect us to take your opinion as fact. We disagree and consider your logic flawed.

If the VP had the power you claim he does, then he could unilaterally stop any bill from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

That is a "fact" not in evidence. No one suggested this. You are just trying to put this forth as one of *YOUR* conclusions from an extrapolation of what we say he can do regarding the election.

The constitution gives him power over the acceptance of these electoral votes, it doesn't extend to other things such as you are trying to assert.

I can say with confidence that George Washington would have been repulsed by the idea that every mouth-breathing moron who reaches the age of 18 has the right to cast a vote in a presidential election on a silly "Election Day."

There is a form of fallacy argument where you say something which is true, but which does not relate to the actual topic being discussed. This is what you have done here.

The point of George Washington was that he *WOULD NOT* go along with corrupt elections. He would stop everything and fight anyone who disagreed.

*CORRUPT ELECTIONS* vitiates everything. You don't proceed with corruption. It doesn't matter what the "rules" are, the system was never intended to rubber stamp fraud and corruption.

An honorable man who possesses his own agency would not go along with something just because everyone around him expects him to do it. Washington would buck the pressure and the crowd to do the right thing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every one of those legislators could have convened BEFORE Election Day and cast a vote for the state's electors.

What does this sentence even mean? How could anyone know that their state election process had been corrupted *BEFORE* it had happened?

Only after the massive corruption was discovered could anything be done about it.

Please provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that a state legislature "tried" to fix the election mess but was prevented from doing so.

Mastriano.

Clearly you don't bother keeping up with this topic to the extent you should to be able to discuss it reasonably.

There was nothing that prevented them from voting on a measure to withdraw the state's electors before the January 6th special session of Congress.

And you know this how?

I would assume that by January 5th, the legislators may have regarded it as too late to do anything about it. It should have convened in early November of 2020. By January, everything was already in motion and likely impossible to stop by their actions.

I don't know the details of what they thought, I am only surmising. Pennsylvania was not the only state that was having turmoil over corrupt elections. Arizona and Georgia also had efforts being made to fix their corrupt elections.

[nitzy]

Not only are you a corruption denier. You are a “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is Hitler” advocate.

The Constitution wouldn’t have given VP that role if it didn’t actually do anything.

Congress wouldn’t have needed to pass a new law to clarify the responsibility if it couldn’t have been interpreted the way Patriots thought it should be.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm noticing a pattern with your posts on subjects like this.

As is the case with so many people, you are seeing what you wish to see.

Again, my point is valid. How can throwing a monkey wrench into the legitimacy of Biden's election have turned out worse than what we have now?

If it had provoked any timidity on the part of Biden, that would have been better, instead, he went to work creating disasters as if he had a mandate.

Trying to halt or derail the proceedings might have accomplished nothing legally, but the cost versus benefit of *DOING SOMETHING* was well worth it had we but had the courage to try.

Even if nothing legally was accomplished, creating doubt about the legitimacy of Biden and his corrupt regime could have only benefited the people of the United States, and for that matter, the world.

[old-ager]

Oh, ok. Thanks for educating us. We never heard of Jim Watkins. Brilliant, unobvious theory. Good work.

[Alberta's Child]

Clearly you don't bother keeping up with this topic to the extent you should to be able to discuss it reasonably.

That's quite an audacious and arrogant statement to make, isn't it? LOL. To wit:

What does this sentence even mean? How could anyone know that their state election process had been corrupted *BEFORE* it had happened?

Just as one example ... the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was issuing rulings on various legal challenges to the state's questionable voting procedures as early as September 2020. Did you miss that one? The legislature should have stepped in as soon as these rulings came down that effectively extended voting deadlines, allowed ballot drop boxes, etc.

Mastriano.

I asked you to provide evidence that a state legislature attempted to fix the election mess, and you post the name of one guy. Nobody prevented him from doing anything. They just didn't listen to him, and he had no power do act on anything without the support of a majority in the PA Senate.

I would assume that by January 5th, the legislators may have regarded it as too late to do anything about it. It should have convened in early November of 2020. By January, everything was already in motion and likely impossible to stop by their actions.

Now that directly contradicts the other contention you've made on this thread (and others) ... that it would be better to do SOMETHING about the election fiasco -- even if it wouldn't legally change the result -- than to do nothing and just let it slide. Senator Tom Cotton explicitly stated that he would have upheld the objection of certifying the electors of any state where a person or government body with authority to act on behalf of the state in an official capacity had issued a formal statement opposing the method of selecting the electors that were in the hands of VP Pence. Nobody did any such thing.

[freeandfreezing]

So what happened in 1876?

[StAnDeliver]

"The issue is this: Is the 2022 law you cite constitutional?"

It's remarkable that you can blather on and not realize that the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 is quite possibly unconstitutional on its face. It simply has not been challenged yet.

There are myriads of active laws that have this same incapacity, but only the neomarxists actually challenge them, while 'conservatives' type with their elbows to reveal only their lack of knowledge about the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act.