Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 19 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 19 (edited) In the 1960 Hawaii Presidential election a recount was underway that would likely not be done prior to the electors needing to cast their ballots. What happened you ask? Both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy sent their own electors to put votes in for them......just in case. The recount was done and the Gov. of Hawaii submitted a fresh 3rd batch which was eventually accepted by Nixon as the President of the Senate. Why is this important? Well neither Kennedy or Nixon was charged with any crime because they did not commit one. While the timing is slightly different keep in mind there was still ongoing litigation after the Dec 14, 2020 ballot timeline that could have changed the outcome. A candidate almost must do this if there is ongoing litigation....that way if its found it is taken up in the house and Senate. Even if the court does nothing its a way for objections to be voiced and heard in both houses. People seem to forget that each party selects their own potential electors ready to cast a vote based on the states results. When there is a dispute each side can submit their votes. This is not illegal. Ultimately, several dozen of Mr. Trump’s allies in the states signed false slates of electors, and most were unequivocal in their contention that Mr. Trump had won. But in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, local officials who drafted the documents included a caveat, saying that they should only be considered if Mr. Trump prevailed in the many lawsuits he and his allies had filed challenging the election, and was legally the winner. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html Despite the unfolding recount, Mr. Nixon claimed he had won the state, and the governor formally certified a slate of electors declaring him the victor. At the same time, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign, holding out hope that he would eventually prevail, drafted its own slate of electors, claiming that he had in fact won the race. In his memo, Mr. Chesebro suggested that this unusual situation set a precedent not only for drafting and submitting two competing slates of electors to the Electoral College, but also for pushing back the latest possible time for settling the election results to Jan. 6 — the date set by federal law for a joint session of Congress to certify the final count of electors. The competing slate conundrum in Hawaii was ultimately put to rest when Mr. Kennedy prevailed in the recount, and a new governor of Hawaii certified a freshly drafted slate of his electors. Then, on Jan. 6, 1961, Mr. Nixon, overseeing the congressional certification session in his role as president of the Senate, received all three slates of electors — his own, the initial Kennedy slate and the certified Kennedy slate — but agreed that the last one should be formally accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii The recount was thus still ongoing on December 19, the day specified in U.S. law for the casting of votes by the members of the electoral college. As a consequence, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened in the ʻIolani Palace and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.[10][15] Certificates for both slates' electoral votes were sent to Franklin G. Floete, the Administrator of General Services.[11] Edited February 19 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 19 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 19 (edited) You can disagree with the electoral college all you want but the constitution allows states to decide whether or not they will force the electors to vote according to the states vote totals. This system was put in place in case it became clear because of fraud or a candidate that won was undeserving or undesirable to becoming POTUS. Imagine if a candidate won then come out and said they were communist and wanted to turn the US in to communist nation never campaigning on such a thing. The founders did not want the POTUS to be seated then impeached, they designed in a safety valve of sorts because the entire admin could be corrupt. Many, many celebrities and democrats tried to sway electors to use this exact reason to not seat Trump in 2016-17 and doing so was not illegal. Edited February 19 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 this is it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 19 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: this is it!!! Maybe they were tricked. Or maybe you were. 60 minutes Ray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said: Maybe they were tricked. Or maybe you were. 60 minutes Ray. speaking of Ray... ignoring your tag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: speaking of Ray... ignoring your tag? You got beat like a rented mule in another thread? Expected really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 5 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: You got beat like a rented mule in another thread? Expected really. did you find the 95% yet? how's Paul Pelosi doing these days? does the vax still cause aids or are ya still compiling the data set? 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) HAWAII 1960 Fulton County Georgia 2023 Edited February 19 by Crnr2Crnr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 but Hawaii... 1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Trying to explain anything like this to people with low iq is difficult. They go back to basic name calling and petty ridicule, because they just dont have anything for rebuttal. Dems have fooled them into a false narrative, AGAIN. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 19 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 19 (edited) 6 minutes ago, racer254 said: Trying to explain anything like this to people with low iq is difficult. They go back to basic name calling and petty ridicule, because they just dont have anything for rebuttal. Dems have fooled them into a false narrative, AGAIN. Their lack of knowledge of the constitution is quite amusing actually. Orange man bad is all they know. They are so convinced Pence had no say in which electors to accept they wrote a new law detailing the VP's responsibility. Edited February 19 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 8 minutes ago, racer254 said: Trying to explain anything like this to people with low iq is difficult. They go back to basic name calling and petty ridicule, because they just dont have anything for rebuttal. Dems have fooled them into a false narrative, AGAIN. why did Eastman and Chesebro plead guilty in Georgia? why are they unnamed co-conspirators in the DC case brought by Jack Smith? 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: Their lack of knowledge of the constitution is quite amusing actually. Orange man bad is all they know. They are so convinced Pence had no say in which electors to accept they wrote a new law detailing the VP's responsibility. Refute Luttig then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 https://www.theatlantic.com/author/j-michael-luttig/ do some more homework... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 'A coup in search of a legal theory' https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/html-submitted/ch5.html @racer254 might enjoy that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 19 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 19 11 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: why did Eastman and Chesebro plead guilty in Georgia? why are they unnamed co-conspirators in the DC case brought by Jack Smith? Refute Luttig then... I believe you have some refuting to be done first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 5 minutes ago, Highmark said: I believe you have some refuting to be done first. I don't have to refute a thing. Trump lost, and his cult (didn't know that included you) is still trying to figure out how nearly four years later. but please... refute Luttig. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 2 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: I don't have to refute a thing. Trump lost, and his cult (didn't know that included you) is still trying to figure out how nearly four years later. but please... refute Luttig. lol they get owned again. Maybe JFK jr really will return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 conspiracy to submit false documents... pleads guilty in Fulton County Georgia but Hawaii... Kenny Kenny... FUN FACT: on a side note @Highmark, buddy of mine went to h.s. with Chesebro in Stevens Point. said he was a f'ng dip shit then as well and apparently ended up being shoved into a locker on more than one occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 While both cases involve electors acting outside the official process, the 1960 Hawaii dispute was not part of a coordinated effort to alter the election outcome, unlike the 2020 situation. The scale and intent differ significantly between the two instances, both of which happen to matter in a court of law. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Nothing but a huge opinion piece designed for people who think they know the legalities of the case. Except it is all based on opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 3 minutes ago, akvanden said: While both cases involve electors acting outside the official process, the 1960 Hawaii dispute was not part of a coordinated effort to alter the election outcome, unlike the 2020 situation. The scale and intent differ significantly between the two instances, both of which happen to matter in a court of law. All based on speculation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 19 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 19 4 minutes ago, racer254 said: All based on speculation Pleading guilty is speculation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 6 minutes ago, racer254 said: All based on speculation Pleading guilty, actually. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 8 minutes ago, racer254 said: Nothing but a huge opinion piece designed for people who think they know the legalities of the case. Except it is all based on opinion. 7 minutes ago, racer254 said: All based on speculation https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4288235-attorney-ellis-plea-deal-prompted-chesebro-powell-pleas/ are you a lawyer? are you willing to die by your own sword for your Lord and Savior Donald J Trump? Trump ruins others lives without thought or concerns... but he's 'fighting for you'. 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.