Really Sherlock? No one has ever denied what he was trying to do. He thinks the election was fraudulent and wanted to delay certifying the results until it could more properly looked in to. He did the only thing he could do which was contest the results. He failed. He left office.
If Pence does what he asked him to do it would have ended up in the court and the issue would have been resolved in the courts. The notion that he was just going to declare victory outside the law is leftist nonsense.
You've either been terribly misled by the people you rely on to form your opinions, or you are lying. Probably lying.
Pence was asked (told) to refuse to count electoral votes and to reject electoral votes from 7 specific states, and then to declare Trump the winner because Trump had more electoral votes. Pence was also asked to do this unilaterally SPECIFICALLY to avoid any involvement by Courts.
Just a few days ago Pence said with regard to the Trump lawyer claim that Pence was asked to "pause" the electoral certification process that the Trump claim was "completely false." Pence said he was asked “to literally reject votes.” Pence also said he was asked to "overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes." Those are Pence's exact words delivered in public interview a few days ago.
Pence's statements from just a few days ago are consistent with (1) his contemporaneous notes from conversation with Trump and Eastman, (2) emails between Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobs and Eastman (3) Trump's own public words on January 6th and days prior about what he wanted Pence to do, (5) the Eastman and Chesebro memos which were sent to Pence and expressly stated that Pence could reject votes and declare the election winner, and (6) sworn testimony of Cipollone, Herschmann, Jacobs (Pence's lawyer), and many others.
THAT will be the evidence at trial. NO one will be able to refute it. Eastman will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. Chesebro will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. And there is no way under heaven and earth that Trump is going to take the stand at trial to discuss any of this stuff. Trump can call Pence a liar publicly every day from now until trial, but there is NO WAY Trump has the guts to take the stand and tell his side of the story under oath.
Here is a copy of the Eastman memo which was sent to Pence and his lawyer Greg Jacobs.
Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).
AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).
You've either been terribly misled by the people you rely on to form your opinions, or you are lying. Probably lying.
Pence was asked (told) to refuse to count electoral votes and to reject electoral votes from 7 specific states, and then to declare Trump the winner because Trump had more electoral votes. Pence was also asked to do this unilaterally SPECIFICALLY to avoid any involvement by Courts.
Just a few days ago Pence said with regard to the Trump lawyer claim that Pence was asked to "pause" the electoral certification process that the Trump claim was "completely false." Pence said he was asked “to literally reject votes.” Pence also said he was asked to "overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes." Those are Pence's exact words delivered in public interview a few days ago.
Pence's statements from just a few days ago are consistent with (1) his contemporaneous notes from conversation with Trump and Eastman, (2) emails between Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobs and Eastman (3) Trump's own public words on January 6th and days prior about what he wanted Pence to do, (5) the Eastman and Chesebro memos which were sent to Pence and expressly stated that Pence could reject votes and declare the election winner, and (6) sworn testimony of Cipollone, Herschmann, Jacobs (Pence's lawyer), and many others.
THAT will be the evidence at trial. NO one will be able to refute it. Eastman will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. Chesebro will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. And there is no way under heaven and earth that Trump is going to take the stand at trial to discuss any of this stuff. Trump can call Pence a liar publicly every day from now until trial, but there is NO WAY Trump has the guts to take the stand and tell his side of the story under oath.
Here is a copy of the Eastman memo which was sent to Pence and his lawyer Greg Jacobs.
Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).
AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).
Remember the Obama/Solyndra mess? Well now Trump has outdone him: Yellow Trucking, a Trump Administration-connected firm that he handed $730 million in taxpayer money to, has gone bankrupt without repaying a dime. That easily beats the $530 million Solyndra loss.
Posting here because while one of the Solyndra threads was allowed to stay up for years, it got deleted as soon as I mentioned Trump and his Yellow Trucking mess.
You've either been terribly misled by the people you rely on to form your opinions, or you are lying. Probably lying.
Pence was asked (told) to refuse to count electoral votes and to reject electoral votes from 7 specific states, and then to declare Trump the winner because Trump had more electoral votes. Pence was also asked to do this unilaterally SPECIFICALLY to avoid any involvement by Courts.
Just a few days ago Pence said with regard to the Trump lawyer claim that Pence was asked to "pause" the electoral certification process that the Trump claim was "completely false." Pence said he was asked “to literally reject votes.” Pence also said he was asked to "overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes." Those are Pence's exact words delivered in public interview a few days ago.
Pence's statements from just a few days ago are consistent with (1) his contemporaneous notes from conversation with Trump and Eastman, (2) emails between Pence's lawyer Greg Jacobs and Eastman (3) Trump's own public words on January 6th and days prior about what he wanted Pence to do, (5) the Eastman and Chesebro memos which were sent to Pence and expressly stated that Pence could reject votes and declare the election winner, and (6) sworn testimony of Cipollone, Herschmann, Jacobs (Pence's lawyer), and many others.
THAT will be the evidence at trial. NO one will be able to refute it. Eastman will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. Chesebro will AGAIN plead the Fifth Amendment when called. And there is no way under heaven and earth that Trump is going to take the stand at trial to discuss any of this stuff. Trump can call Pence a liar publicly every day from now until trial, but there is NO WAY Trump has the guts to take the stand and tell his side of the story under oath.
Here is a copy of the Eastman memo which was sent to Pence and his lawyer Greg Jacobs.
Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).
AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).
I would love to see BabyontheToilet's face when he reads this post and realizes that his side is lying left and right and he's caught repeating it all.
Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).
AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).
If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.
Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.
This actually hurts your position. The new law doesn't change the crime listed in the original act. It's still illegal to submit fraudulent electors. In fact, it doesn't address the crime that Trump is accused of at all.
The bill you linked only clarifies each parties role in the process and expedites judicial review.
Your gotcha backfired, because you lack understanding.
Today's US far right has always ( or at least since the defeat of radical reconstruction), repeated timeless conservative tropes about "natural hierarchies"-- in particular, gender and racial/civilizational-- that it claims are being disastrously ignored or wished away by weak, self-deluded liberals. The question is why these appeals seem to be resonating with a meaningful percentage of the population today. The answer is not obvious, not least because most Americans are more likely to find themselves closer to the bottom of some kind of hierarchy (class, status, educational) than at the middle or top. What has happened to America's founding egalitarianism (always limited in practice but radical in potential)? How does a political culture born out of the Enlightenment concepts of natural human equality come to embrace opposite concepts? Wouldn't it have made more sense if these radical egalitarian roots had produced an increasingly deeper democratic political culture (e.g. one that finally cured the founding pathologies of anti-black racism and imperialist exceptionalism) rather than an increasingly authoritarian one (one that has reanimated 19C concepts of race, racial hierarchy, and national chauvinism)?
The point is that "natural hierarchies" are and always have been a part of political dynamics, but they matter almost not at all to those white collar workers entrenched near the top of the hierarchy and are less manifest as a political driver for the blue collar class when they feel they are advancing or at least keeping up.
"Enlightenment concepts" are easily embraced by those who are comfortable and by those who feel they are advancing.
In any case, this isn't something that can be understood simply by recourse to abstract social-psychological typologies, as interesting as they might be in other respects.
Models are inherently simplistic representations of a more complex reality. The goal in general is that we want the model to be simple enough to be understandable while still having utility in recognizing broad tendencies in how persons react to the environment of the moment. The point is that a one dimensional left/right model is probably too simplistic to be useful and there are any number of multi-dimensional models possible. That is, left/right fails because it really just recognizes party allegiance and doesn't provide a basis for changing allegiance or factionalization within the parties.
We could (and political strategists do) look at divisions based on age, race/ethnicity, religiousity, etc, but this tells us (imperfectly) "who" rather than "why" and gets complicated quickly as there are factions within these divisions.
In any case, I point out Kahan's work because it does seem to have utility in this context, not because it is the complete answer to life, the universe and everything.
If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.
Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.
This actually hurts your position. The new law doesn't change the crime listed in the original act. It's still illegal to submit fraudulent electors. In fact, it doesn't address the crime that Trump is accused of at all.
The bill you linked only clarifies each parties role in the process and expedites judicial review.
Your gotcha backfired, because you lack understanding.
If there was no gray area for Trump to operate in there would be no need for the bill.
It's unconstitutional at worst which is not a crime.
This actually hurts your position. The new law doesn't change the crime listed in the original act. It's still illegal to submit fraudulent electors. In fact, it doesn't address the crime that Trump is accused of at all.
The bill you linked only clarifies each parties role in the process and expedites judicial review.
Your gotcha backfired, because you lack understanding.
If there was no gray area for Trump to operate in there would be no need for the bill.
It's unconstitutional at worst which is not a crime.
Again, you don't understand. There is/was no gray area, with regard to submitting fraudulent electors. The new law doesn't change anything with regard to submitting fraudulent electors.
You've proven over and over that this is outside your realm of understanding. You really don't get it. You think you're making salient points, when in reality you are presenting pure nonsense.
You may as well respond to everyone with a series of quacks. Because everything you type is as relevant as quack, quack quack.
I thought citizen Mr Trump had moved on to 'so unfair, I can't get a fair trial in DC' as a prelude to the inevitable 'must fight hard, be there, will be Wild!' that he will twit when conviction/sentencing approach.
I thought citizen Mr Trump had moved on to 'so unfair, I can't get a fair trial in DC' as a prelude to the inevitable 'must fight hard, be there, will be Wild!' that he will twit when conviction/sentencing approach.
He has. He overestimates the conviction of his base.
Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).
AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).
If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.
Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.
How many minutes have you spent in law school?
But there you are, oh-so-wisely commenting on the case's destination through appeals.
See, this is often the difference between well-educated people and not-well-educated people. Modesty. One knows what one knows a lot about, nothing about, and everything in-between. Roughly, at least.
You, on the other hand......wait for it......lack this SELF-AWARENESS !!!
I thought citizen Mr Trump had moved on to 'so unfair, I can't get a fair trial in DC' as a prelude to the inevitable 'must fight hard, be there, will be Wild!' that he will twit when conviction/sentencing approach.
He has. He overestimates the conviction of his base.
His followers will never take up arms for him again, en masse. His hope is a lone wolf nut job who tries to take out a judge or prosecutor, but the masses have seen what happened to the January 6th terrorists and want no part of that reality.
Today's US far right has always ( or at least since the defeat of radical reconstruction), repeated timeless conservative tropes about "natural hierarchies"-- in particular, gender and racial/civilizational-- that it claims are being disastrously ignored or wished away by weak, self-deluded liberals. The question is why these appeals seem to be resonating with a meaningful percentage of the population today. The answer is not obvious, not least because most Americans are more likely to find themselves closer to the bottom of some kind of hierarchy (class, status, educational) than at the middle or top. What has happened to America's founding egalitarianism (always limited in practice but radical in potential)? How does a political culture born out of the Enlightenment concepts of natural human equality come to embrace opposite concepts? Wouldn't it have made more sense if these radical egalitarian roots had produced an increasingly deeper democratic political culture (e.g. one that finally cured the founding pathologies of anti-black racism and imperialist exceptionalism) rather than an increasingly authoritarian one (one that has reanimated 19C concepts of race, racial hierarchy, and national chauvinism)?
The point is that "natural hierarchies" are and always have been a part of political dynamics, but they matter almost not at all to those white collar workers entrenched near the top of the hierarchy and are less manifest as a political driver for the blue collar class when they feel they are advancing or at least keeping up.
"Enlightenment concepts" are easily embraced by those who are comfortable and by those who feel they are advancing.
In any case, this isn't something that can be understood simply by recourse to abstract social-psychological typologies, as interesting as they might be in other respects.
Models are inherently simplistic representations of a more complex reality. The goal in general is that we want the model to be simple enough to be understandable while still having utility in recognizing broad tendencies in how persons react to the environment of the moment. The point is that a one dimensional left/right model is probably too simplistic to be useful and there are any number of multi-dimensional models possible. That is, left/right fails because it really just recognizes party allegiance and doesn't provide a basis for changing allegiance or factionalization within the parties.
We could (and political strategists do) look at divisions based on age, race/ethnicity, religiousity, etc, but this tells us (imperfectly) "who" rather than "why" and gets complicated quickly as there are factions within these divisions.
In any case, I point out Kahan's work because it does seem to have utility in this context, not because it is the complete answer to life, the universe and everything.
But left/right ideological schema and appeals endure practically and methodologically because they continue to capture very important realities about how power works in capitalist societies in particular.
For instance, it is odd to say that more privileged segments of professional and wage workers don't resonate with concepts of natural hierarchy when you consider how these workers typically understand their own success in capitalist labor markets, and how they orient themselves on the questions of material redistribution in general (they are usually against it in fundamental ways). US politics today can be understood largely in terms of the myth of meritocratic wealth distribution held by affluent liberals on one hand (a belief in a natural hierarchy of "merit", usually understood in terms of intelligence and skill) and adherence to cruder ideas about human difference and inequality (race and gender) on the other (right) hand. Both sets of beliefs are mobilized to explain differences in wealth and income distribution (and the power distribution that accompanies it) within modern capitalist class systems-- systems of the kind that the concept of "left vs right" was developed to make sense of, and will continue to be very useful in making sense of until such time as we no longer live under modern capitalism.
This "beyond left vs right" business is usually just a way of trying to deny, politically or methodologically, that we're still living under capitalism with all that this entails about the distribution of wealth and power-- the things that really define any society. This, BTW, is why we need to insist on the difference between "liberals", who are often just as committed to naturalizing capitalist class inequality as conservatives are, albeit in their own terms, and the left proper, which wants to question it.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.
Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.
How many minutes have you spent in law school?
But there you are, oh-so-wisely commenting on the case's destination through appeals.
See, this is often the difference between well-educated people and not-well-educated people. Modesty. One knows what one knows a lot about, nothing about, and everything in-between. Roughly, at least.
You, on the other hand......wait for it......lack this SELF-AWARENESS !!!
BabyOnTheToilet is truly hilarious. His commitment to petulant, stubborn stupidity truly knows zero bounds.
If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.
Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.
How many minutes have you spent in law school?
But there you are, oh-so-wisely commenting on the case's destination through appeals.
See, this is often the difference between well-educated people and not-well-educated people. Modesty. One knows what one knows a lot about, nothing about, and everything in-between. Roughly, at least.
You, on the other hand......wait for it......lack this SELF-AWARENESS !!!
I've spent more time in law school than you've spent in combat stolen valor boy.
Turley and Dershowitz went to law school and they both disagree that this case is the slam dunk you TDS clowns think it is.
Trump was impeached for asking questions about what Biden did in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden crime family has something like 170+ suspicious activity reports at the US treasury for their numerous shell companies which launder the money.
All of your outrage over Trump needs to be kept in context. You chose the most corrupt politician in American history to replace him.
A few questions for you:
1) Who constitutes the Biden crime family? Joe and Hunter, or does it go wider than that?
2) Why have I not read about all of this money laundering done by the Biden crime family? A big story like this one would be covered by the MSM.
3) Do you project like Trump? Trump is the most corrupt politician...not even close. He drained the swamp by putting his daughter and SIL into the WH, getting her some $$$ from China, etc. Wanting to do many illegal things, only to be thwarted by the deep state. And a billionaire that needs donations from the little people to cover his legal expenses and lifestyle...bigly sad.
But there you are, oh-so-wisely commenting on the case's destination through appeals.
See, this is often the difference between well-educated people and not-well-educated people. Modesty. One knows what one knows a lot about, nothing about, and everything in-between. Roughly, at least.
You, on the other hand......wait for it......lack this SELF-AWARENESS !!!
I've spent more time in law school than you've spent in combat stolen valor boy.
Turley and Dershowitz went to law school and they both disagree that this case is the slam dunk you TDS clowns think it is.
Turley and Dershowitz presented a first amendment argument that was meant to give hope to rubes just like you. They presented it because the think they're scholars. They operate in a world of hypotheticals. They also know that when the rubber hits the road their hypotheticals don't mean squat.
They funny thing about you referencing Turley and Dershowitz is that you don't understand their legal reasoning, either. You have no idea what they proposed and why it isn't a real defense. No of this is a first amendment issue.
Turley a partisan hack that has since wavered from his initial assessment. Dershowitz is clown that is constantly wrong, whether he keeps his underwear on or not.
Like I said before, you're a fountain of nonsense.