akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Highmark said: Again....show me the specific law that states that cannot be done? Signing an official document that states something other than the known truth is called fraud. Which states fraud laws would you like? 1 hour ago, Highmark said: There was significant debate as to whether or not the VP could choose a particular slate of electors....in fact this was in such doubt they passed legislation AFTER the fact to try and clarify it. Now if it was so clear why would they do that? Did passing that law after ensure that no law was broken prior? They passed legislation to enshrine and strengthen the constitutional duties of the VP so certain actors couldn’t attempt to put our country in this position again. And put that to the side for the moment, do you really think the framers of the constitution wanted a democracy in which the president and vice president could at will throw out electoral votes? That goes against everything we stand for. Strengthening legislation, laws, adding amendments to the constitution, etc does not mean everything prior is now null and void. As example, the civil rights act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, etc. seems pretty self explanatory and expansive, right? But since then the equal employment opportunity act, the pregnancy discrimination act, and others were passed that further and more explicitly strengthened the civil rights act. Were people still held accountable for discriminating against pregnant women before that specific act passed based on the 1964 civil right legislation? Yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, akvanden said: Signing an official document that states something other than the known truth is called fraud. Which states fraud laws would you like? They passed legislation to enshrine and strengthen the constitutional duties of the VP so certain actors couldn’t attempt to put our country in this position again. And put that to the side for the moment, do you really think the framers of the constitution wanted a democracy in which the president and vice president could at will throw out electoral votes? That goes against everything we stand for. Strengthening legislation, laws, adding amendments to the constitution, etc does not mean everything prior is now null and void. As example, the civil rights act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, etc. seems pretty self explanatory and expansive, right? But since then the equal employment opportunity act, the pregnancy discrimination act, and others were passed that further and more explicitly strengthened the civil rights act. Were people still held accountable for discriminating against pregnant women before that specific act passed based on the 1964 civil right legislation? Yes. Known truth. So if one truly feels at the time they signed the document that there had been unconstitutional changes to their state election or that other fraud had existed in the election is that fraudulent. You say known truth yet cases were still pending before the USSC. On the bold. They passed it because many constitutional scholars agreed it was a bit of an unknown and they didn't want it to get to a conservative SC. Your points are adding to or upgrading existing laws or amendments not clarification like here. Well I don't think you could say it was just the President and Vice President that would have the powers. It would need to come from the electors who felt there was something wrong. Do you agree that in some states faithless electors are legal? Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, akvanden said: Have you read the Cheseboro or Eastman memos? It wasn’t “send in Republican electors should litigation swing the state entirely the opposite way.” It was send the electors with falsified documentation saying Trump won and Pence count those instead on J6, regardless of any pending litigation. Or just completely throw out said states that Biden won. That’s what they’re being charged for, not your watered down version. I just did in my own words. Did you miss it? Can you tell me how it differs, if at all? You clearly asked for a good reason. What was anyone guilty of? Cheseboro took a plea deal. Thats what happens when you want to get out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) 53 minutes ago, racer254 said: What was anyone guilty of? Cheseboro took a plea deal. Thats what happens when you want to get out. We are to the point where the opposition criminally charges people for an untested legal theory. Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Highmark said: Known truth. So if one truly feels at the time they signed the document that there had been unconstitutional changes to their state election or that other fraud had existed in the election is that fraudulent. You say known truth yet cases were still pending before the USSC. On the bold. They passed it because many constitutional scholars agreed it was a bit of an unknown and they didn't want it to get to a conservative SC. Well I don't think you could say it was just the President and Vice President that would have the powers. It would need to come from the electors who felt there was something wrong. Do you agree that in some states faithless electors are legal? How has this all played out. Can you point the class to the court case or cases verifying the election was stolen? Should be easy since it’s obvious Oh - and should the Dems impose a gut feeling theory the next time they lose and election and send the blue alternate slate of electors to DC? Then the Dem VP can do as you believe Pence had the right to do… I mean Repugs in several states have changed voting laws designed to surpass the non white vote….and if they hadn’t….there’s a strong theory the Dems would have won. Sound good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, SnowRider said: How has this all played out. Can you point the class to the court case or cases verifying the election was stolen? Should be easy since it’s obvious Oh - and should the Dems impose a gut feeling theory the next time they lose and election and send the blue alternate slate of electors to DC? Then the Dem VP can do as you believe Pence had the right to do… I mean Repugs in several states have changed voting laws designed to surpass the non white vote….and if they hadn’t….there’s a strong theory the Dems would have won. Sound good? Whoosh......you need to go back and read more carefully. Doesn't matter which way the court ruled what matters is there was pending litigation at the time the electors had to submit their vote. This isn't all that different when Kennedy submitted electors in his favor in Hawaii even though at that point he had lost. Rather recount or litigation can be justification for submitting EC votes to the necessary recipiants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 Just now, Highmark said: Whoosh......you need to go back and read more carefully. Doesn't matter which way the court ruled what matters is there was pending litigation at the time the electors had to submit their vote. This isn't all that different when Kennedy submitted electors in his favor in Hawaii even though at that point he had lost. Rather recount or litigation can be justification for submitting EC votes to the necessary recipiants. You’re defending the indefensible. So next time the Dems will have pending litigation - then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) 20 minutes ago, SnowRider said: You’re defending the indefensible. So next time the Dems will have pending litigation - then what? Simple...they legally can send their own slate of electors votes until the pending court cases are decided. Its then up to the same thing that happened a number of times where objections to the count can be heard and if a Representative and Senator both sign it goes to both houses for debate and a vote. Both sides did this in 2016 and 2020 respectively. Now a question for you. In some states is it legal for an elector to change their vote even if they were selected by one or the other parties? Its called a faithless elector. No it did not make Trump win however that doesn't mean the process was illegal leading to charges such as Racketeering. Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Known truth. So if one truly feels at the time they signed the document that there had been unconstitutional changes to their state election or that other fraud had existed in the election is that fraudulent. You say known truth yet cases were still pending before the USSC. Is not for them to decide, their feelings are irrelevant. 2 hours ago, Highmark said: On the bold. They passed it because many constitutional scholars agreed it was a bit of an unknown and they didn't want it to get to a conservative SC. Your points are adding to or upgrading existing laws or amendments not clarification like here. It’s absolutely the same. Like it takes a rocket scientist to understand in a democracy whether or not a VP can unilaterally throw out elector votes, across multiple states, so they can stay in power. 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Well I don't think you could say it was just the President and Vice President that would have the powers. It would need to come from the electors who felt there was something wrong. Facts don’t care about feelings, even three years later. VP can’t throw out votes based on feelings, thank God. Liked you’d want Biden to pull that stunt with Kamala. 2 hours ago, Highmark said: Do you agree that in some states faithless electors are legal? Yes, an elector from the winning party could changed their own personal vote. 1 hour ago, racer254 said: What was anyone guilty of? Cheseboro took a plea deal. Thats what happens when you want to get out. You’re too lazy to google what he plead guilty to? God you’re worthless. Are you implying the plea deal made him less guilty? You understand the whole propose of plea deals by the prosecution? It’s a deal because they’re going after someone else and they need their testimony. Gee, wonder who the ultimate target is….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, akvanden said: Is not for them to decide, their feelings are irrelevant. It’s absolutely the same. Like it takes a rocket scientist to understand in a democracy whether or not a VP can unilaterally throw out elector votes, across multiple states, so they can stay in power. Facts don’t care about feelings, even three years later. VP can’t throw out votes based on feelings, thank God. Liked you’d want Biden to pull that stunt with Kamala. Yes, an elector from the winning party could changed their own personal vote. You’re too lazy to google what he plead guilty to? God you’re worthless. Are you implying the plea deal made him less guilty? You understand the whole propose of plea deals by the prosecution? It’s a deal because they’re going after someone else and they need their testimony. Gee, wonder who the ultimate target is….. Its a deal because the prosecution couldnt 100 % prove he was guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 12 minutes ago, racer254 said: It’s a deal because the prosecution couldnt 100 % prove he was guilty. Skidmark and racer are like opposite world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 24 minutes ago, racer254 said: Its a deal because the prosecution couldnt 100 % prove he was guilty. So he told them to fuck off and didn’t agree to give the prosecution anything in exchange? I’m mean, why would you if they can’t prove your guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 2 hours ago, akvanden said: So he told them to fuck off and didn’t agree to give the prosecution anything in exchange? I’m mean, why would you if they can’t prove your guilt. Lol. The media elites love people like you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 21 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 21 12 minutes ago, racer254 said: Lol. The media elites love people like you You ignore simple facts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 5 minutes ago, SnowRider said: You ignore simple facts You worship a party made of corrupt traitors, yet live in a neighborhood that would defend you because they know you are ignorant 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 21 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 21 1 minute ago, racer254 said: You worship a party made of corrupt traitors, yet live in a neighborhood that would defend you because they know you are ignorant Speaking of zero self-awareness You drive over 30 miles one way to the bluest area in WI to earn a living Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member EvilBird Posted February 21 Gold Member Share Posted February 21 1 minute ago, SnowRider said: Speaking of zero self-awareness You drive over 30 miles one way to the bluest area in WI to earn a living So he goes to Blue to make a Living and you hide in the Red area to stay around White people. Who is the pussy ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 46 minutes ago, racer254 said: Lol. The media elites love people like you Can’t explain that one, can you. Deflect, quick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 15 minutes ago, akvanden said: Can’t explain that one, can you. Deflect, quick! Omg, you really fail to understand lawfare. The guy is an attorney who built a retirement fund and does not want to lose it. Thats the whole point of these pos that use taxpayer funded lawsuits. Jesus, it sucks how ignorant some of you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 33 minutes ago, racer254 said: Omg, you really fail to understand lawfare. The guy is an attorney who built a retirement fund and does not want to lose it. Thats the whole point of these pos that use taxpayer funded lawsuits. Jesus, it sucks how ignorant some of you are. Nice work. You clearly articulated (in your own words) why he’s actually not guilty and was forced to take a plea deal even though he’s innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Just now, akvanden said: Nice work. You clearly articulated (in your own words) why he’s actually not guilty and was forced to take a plea deal even though he’s innocent. Some people get it. They need to start making laws using taxpayer money for this type of lawfare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, akvanden said: Nice work. You clearly articulated (in your own words) why he’s actually not guilty and was forced to take a plea deal even though he’s innocent. So after the term is up on the plea deal is there any charge left on the books? Or does it all disappear like nothing ever happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 32 minutes ago, Roosting said: So after the term is up on the plea deal is there any charge left on the books? Or does it all disappear like nothing ever happened? Novel idea: look and find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 21 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 21 17 hours ago, akvanden said: Is not for them to decide, their feelings are irrelevant. It’s absolutely the same. Like it takes a rocket scientist to understand in a democracy whether or not a VP can unilaterally throw out elector votes, across multiple states, so they can stay in power. Facts don’t care about feelings, even three years later. VP can’t throw out votes based on feelings, thank God. Liked you’d want Biden to pull that stunt with Kamala. Yes, an elector from the winning party could changed their own personal vote. You’re too lazy to google what he plead guilty to? God you’re worthless. Are you implying the plea deal made him less guilty? You understand the whole propose of plea deals by the prosecution? It’s a deal because they’re going after someone else and they need their testimony. Gee, wonder who the ultimate target is….. Here's where some legal scholars say was in the dark. Keep in mind in 1960 the archivist also received votes for both Kennedy and Nixon. Which ballot envelop does the VP open and accept? Amendment XII The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 59 minutes ago, Highmark said: Here's where some legal scholars say was in the dark. Keep in mind in 1960 the archivist also received votes for both Kennedy and Nixon. Which ballot envelop does the VP open and accept? Amendment XII The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; Counting both certificates with the intent of what…? What next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.