world

Pence won't interfere in election count despite pressure from Trump

21 Comments
By Jeff Mason

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Vice President Mike Pence plans to stick to his ceremonial duties

Too soon to tell. Pence has shown he's a Trump Republican, i.e. a politician with zero integrity for sale to the highest bidder.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

What are the odds that Trump will try to fire Pence over this, only to be frankly told he can't, at which point he'll throw a toddler level temper tantrum?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Trump has a Constitutional path to victory.

Lol no he doesn't.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

If 37 or more electoral votes are rejected as invalid, then neither candidate reaches the 270 threshold.

And the only way votes that states have certified and sent can be rejected as invalid is by an objecting and then upholding that objection by both houses of Congress.

Which won't happen.

Pence does not have the power to unilaterally reject any votes. As stated, his job is ceremonial, basically Vice President Vanna White at this point.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

B-B, you don't know the US Constitution very well. First off, in the event a delegate slate is subject to protest both houses of Congress will adjourn separately to discuss the protest and vote on whether or not to reject a delegate slate that is the object of the protest. Each house must vote separately to reject a delegate slate. With the House of Representatives being solidly Democratic the Republicans can make all the protests they wish but if the members of the House do not vote to reject any Electoral College delegate slate, then their Electoral College votes stand. There is no Constitutional provision for the VP to override this process.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The electors are not chosen fraudulently.

The courts have reviewed the evidence, which has no support or just doesn't exist. 

Actually when asked directly by judges Mr. Giuliani and other lawyers for the Trump Campaign stated they were not making allegations of fraud, basically undercutting their public claims of massive fraud. When push came to shove they really didn't have an actionable claim to make in court.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Absolutely incorrect, no matter how many times you post it. The electoral votes have to actually be invalid, which none are because there was zero fraud in the election.

Be careful, read the Constitution and US history with care. If a majority of both Houses of Congress vote to reject a delegate slate, they legally can. There have been instances in US history of states sending two competing slates of Electors to Congress to certify. A state is only allowed one slate so Congress had to make a choice. There have been several such instances but the one I recall off the top of my head was Hawaii sending slate that was voting for Richard Nixon and another that was voting for John F. Kennedy. Ultimately their dispute made no difference in the election but that has not always been the case.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Supreme Court, is how we SETTLE questions of legality. The legality of the election is legally settled.

Again, be careful. The US Supreme Court ruled the litigants didn't have standing to sue. To have standing before a court to sue one must show the action the plaintiff seeks to enjoin causes them direct harm and the remedy they seek will eliminate that harm. The plaintiffs in the suits brought before the Supreme Court could not show direct harm to themselves and therefore had no standing to sue. The merits of the case were not addressed directly though the concurring opinion from two justices hinted that they saw no merit in the suit but were willing to entertain Texas had standing before the Supreme Court. In fact the Constitution does offer a remedy to their complaint, and that is to pursue a protest of the Electoral College slate from the four states Texas tried to sue, obviating any need to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Trump has a Constitutional path to victory.

So you keep saying. I guess we’ll see when we wake up in the 7th.

Do you have your excuse ready or will you accept reality like a grown up and move on?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I have. Congress can’t simply throw out electors under the Electoral Count Act.

If a delegate slate is protested in writing by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate and by a majority vote of both houses they agree to eliminate the slate of electors so protested then yes they can throw out electors and their electoral votes would not be counted. Now, if the state whose electors were protested only offered one slate of electors and that slate was certified by their state and met the Safe Harbor provisions of the Electoral Count Act it would certainly be controversial and unprecedented but there is no wording in the Electoral Count Act to positively prevent Congress from doing that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump has a Constitutional path to victory.

Sure, under the Russian Constitution, not US...

As far as Pence's role, let's listen to Trump's own lawyer;

Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyer and personal defense attorney, said Trump's insistence that Vice President Mike Pence reject the electoral results of several states is unconstitutional.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-request-pence-election-unconstitutional-2021-1

Hmmmmm.....

4 ( +5 / -1 )

At issue - or seemingly so - is the legitimacy of the election outcome - there have been counts and re-counts - and (as far as I am aware) no statistically significant variations of the results reported have been found - all of this constitutional nuance is not the point - an election was held in a democracy - the source data is there - the machines have been audited - signatures have been audited - indeed pressure has been brought to bear on people who SIMPLY tabulated data - if there was significant election fraud to have changed the outcome of the election - it would be trivial to prove it - and as yet - has not been proven - this whole thing is sort of like having been transported back to the dark ages when "scientists" discarded observations that didn't fit into their hypothesis - as opposed to letting the data drive the hypothesis -

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sure, Trump does have a path. A path that would require Democratic Congressmen to willingly vote against Biden and hand the election to Trump. So, technically, it's true. Good luck with that.

And Pence has no standing to change anything. The headline might as well read, "Superlib won't interfere in election count despite pressure from Trump."

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities. And I promise you, come this Wednesday, we'll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the objections. We'll hear the evidence," he said.

Pence neither has any morals nor any spine.

His pretentious piety is just that, he chooses to lie and bow to the trump despite knowing its based on falsehoods.

He is the true face of the religious right, rotten to the core!!!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

At issue - or seemingly so - is the legitimacy of the election outcome 

What few want to talk about is that if the election for the President was full of fraud, what about rest of the offices up for election on those very same ballots? If the elections in several states were, as many Republicans allege, rigged and fraudulent, how about their own election results? It is impossible to believe that fraudulent ballots submitted for Joe Biden are not also fraudulent for all the down ballot elections on those very same ballots. Are not some members of the new Congress therefore also fraudulently seated? And how does it happen that while fraudulent ballots are submitted for Joe Biden, those very same fraudulent ballots increased the number of Republicans in the House of Representatives? Are we to believe the same fraudsters who put an x next to Joe Biden's name also put an x next to a Republican Congressional candidates name? One Republican member of Congress did indeed file a formal challenge to seating a number of members to the new Congress for exactly this reason. It remains to be seen if this will go anywhere but it raises the possibility that if the Republicans want to press the legitimacy matter then the Democrats could just as easily claim those House seats won in the same states being challenged are likewise fraudulently gotten.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

15 more days of freakin' torture with this foolishness.

BB showing us just how much Russia is willing to spend money on hiring social media instigators pushing their far right conservatism to easily swayed far right fanatical 'Muricans who can't tell their being played.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites