Political discussions about everything
By johnforbes
#134109
Leftist Van Jones before the 2020 election explained how a VP could remand disputed electors to state legislatures for resolution.

That is what Pence could have done had he understood the history, the law, and had he wanted to not certify the election and instead send it to state legislatures.

The discussion is a bit too technical for partisan media outlets like CNN (Anderson Cooper was unable to comprehend it), but Congress now wants to amend the the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to try to prevent any future problem with it.

Of course, the Democrats who want to amend it are doing so on the theory that it would have helped them, but the truth is a scenario could pop up as a matter helping either party.
By Clownkicker
#134111
Wow, now johnforbes has to resort to leftists to get a flimsy legal opinion for his unsupportable argument against the legal analysis of every recognized conservative Constitutional scholar and judge.

It's way over johnny's head that he looks like an imbecile for relying on leftist legal opinions to try to create the illusion that he has a case that even Trump's own lawyers admitted was a crime.

I'm getting the impression that johnny's reliance on leftists for his arguments only proves that he's nothing more than another RINO.
By johnforbes
#134124
If there was no reason to amend that act, why amend it?

The truth, of course, is Democrats are eager to amend it because competing slates of electors could well have been remanded to state legislatures for resolution per the Constitution.

And what would have been the harm in that?

Joe might well have prevailed, and if he didn't then it would still have been within the ambit of the Constitution.
By Clownkicker
#134129
johnny, THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ELECTORS. The electors were all appointed according to legally certified election results in each state and nobody disputed that fact. You made it up. There were no "competing slates of electors." Made up lists of votes can't "compete" with those of legally appointed electors any more than the votes for an act on "America's Got Talent" can compete with legally certified election results. There were only some lists of votes without any legal standing in any of the states that waited in the wings to overturn legally certified votes. All the electors' votes before Congress had been legally certified by authorities in each state. The "alternate" lists of votes had not. They were simply made up by partisans.

Just because a bunch of sore losers don't like the certified election results does not mean that the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6th should be stopped while 6-month partisan audits of each allegedly incompetently Republican-run election are run and the U.S. goes without a president all that time.

Delaying the peaceful transfer of power without any supporting court opinions or contrary audit results (and there weren't any) is NOT just a small matter to be shrugged off, johnny. ALL lawsuits in EVERY state pretending election fraud had failed more than 60 times, including two before the conservative U.S. Supreme Court. There comes a point when everyone must simply accept the rulings of our courts and move on, even if we don't like them sometimes. Such universally frivolous delays would be the end of our Constitution. When after two months not a single person could come up with a shred of evidence of any election fraud to put before a judge (not partisan SPECULATIONS, johnny. Those are not evidence of anything) then the Constitutionally mandated procedures must be followed and the results accepted by the losers. A delay is not a small thing. Going without a president for six months while partisans futilely try to fabricate or magically "find" different vote counts is untenable (and just plain stupid.) No intelligent person would ever want that. And yet you do and you continue to pretend a 'delay' would be inconsequential. It wouldn't.
By johnforbes
#134135
Every swing state appointed alternative slates of electors, and they did so to preserve their legal rights, and to create disputed slates of electors.

Van did a whole video explaining what happens if an election is close and one candidate does not concede, and what the history and the Constitution say.

Democrats control Congress, and they want to clarify and amend the Electoral Count Act.

Van is a leftist, but I give him credit for having the intellectual honesty to discuss the issue.

It is a real issue, which is why Dems want to amend that old act.
By Clownkicker
#134138
Amazing, johnforbes actually admitted that Trump was attempting a coup. What the guy calls a "legal" coup, but still a coup. And this after he has ridiculed people for calling the Jan. 6th riots an attempted coup. Does johnforbes ever read the bullshit he writes?

johnny also admits that Trump is effectively trying to foment nation-wide violence and bring down our Republic by refusing to concede when he lost the election, against all U.S. tradition.

Also, johnforbes just revealed that he is being hypocritically disingenuous about the need to amend the Electoral Count Act. He just linked us a video that shows the glaring weaknesses of the Electoral Count Act as it stands. johnforbes should be praising the Democrats for trying to clarify the Electoral Count Act to prevent a total collapse of our democracy as Trump is trying to instigate.

But is he? No, he's ridiculing them for it when he should be condemning Trump for his actions. That's how much johnforbes despises our democracy
By johnforbes
#134142
Well, no.

What would have been at issue in that scenario would have been an election decide who was president for the next term.

Dems did attempt an administrative coup against Trump in the form of the fake dossier, which FISA judges signed wiretaps mostly on the basis of, and the two year Mueller probe when they knew early on there was no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.
By Clownkicker
#134149
Again, when johnforbes is caught admitting that Trump attempted an administrative coup, he is so embarrassed by being caught that he desperately tries to point elsewhere to pretend that someone else did what he admitted Trump actually did. But, unlike Trump, the one he points at was running a typical democratic political campaign; the direct opposite of a coup. Democracy is not a "coup," dimwit.

Get a fucking dictionary, johnny. No one can talk to you when you're making up fictional definitions for common English words.

Trump was the one you just admitted was attempting what you call an "administrative coup."
By johnforbes
#134151
Surely all the top Dems knew that the Steele dossier was fake and paid for by Hillary and the DNC.

Everybody surely knew Perkins was used by Dems and Fusion GPS too.

Surely everybody knew that, if a FISA judge was being asked to wiretap one Trump's staff, then any reasonable person would look to that candidate's opponent (Hillary) for the motive.

So, yeah, it was sort of an administrative coup attempt aimed at nullifying Trump's presidency, and the two years of the Mueller probe were the same thing.

No rational person believes that the Jan protest-turned-riot was some sort of insurrection attempt because you can't overthrow a big country with unarmed people or dopes wearing Viking horns or some grandmother in a MAGA cap, but Democrats continue to try to make political hay out of it.

Sure, an effete person such as Clownswisher has never touched binder twine, but it remains true.
By Clownkicker
#134156
Of course I've "touched binder twine" johnny. I was haying back in the day when that was what hay bales were bound with.

I even loaded bales on a farm in Germany, not just in the U.S..

I wasn't out stacking shit piles in the barn the way you were.
By Clownkicker
#134182
The news just keeps getting worse for the fake electors perpetrated by Trump's cronies and henchmen:

"Of all the evidence uncovered by the committee, what jumps out to me as a former federal prosecutor are the “fake elector” certificates signed by Trump electors and submitted to former Vice President Mike Pence in an effort to delay the certification of the electoral votes on January 6. Those certificates contained statements that are easily proven false.

For example, some listed names of people who weren’t even Trump electors that cycle. Others claimed that they were “duly elected.” When you make a false statement to the federal government, you’re putting a target on your back. If you lie to the U.S. government, you can be charged with a felony."

"Typically, lawyers are not a weak link. In my experience, lawyers have been the most difficult defendants to convict. They’re usually careful about what they say and what they write down. But Trump’s coterie of dishonest legal advisers — John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Clark — weren’t careful. In their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, they said things that were demonstrably false and were personally involved in lies told to government officials. If prosecutors can prove that one or more of them created the false certificates, and knew that doing so was illegal, they may have criminal liability. If they knew about the false statements and advanced the scheme to transmit them to the U.S. Senate, that may also be enough. Clark is facing the same criminal liability for writing false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch."

"We have already heard testimony this week that they knew what they were saying was false. Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers testified Tuesday that after Giuliani and Trump promised him evidence of 400,000 dead people who voted, Giuliani at one point admitted that he had “lots of theories” but “no evidence.” Similarly, Eastman privately admitted that his theory that Pence could overturn the election would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, but he nonetheless tried to convince Trump, Pence and others that his view was right."

"We also heard extensive evidence of Clark’s dishonest scheme, which violates the same statute. Clark drafted a letter to Georgia election officials falsely stating the DOJ had evidence of fraud affecting the state’s results and that the governor should call a special session of the legislature to approve “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump.” Clark was told repeatedly by his superiors at DOJ that absolutely no evidence existed to support that statement, and he had no authority to conduct his own investigation or to direct states whether or how to select electors, but he persisted in promoting the conspiracy until days before Congress was scheduled to certify the electoral college votes on Jan. 6. The evidence that Clark knew his statement was false, and that he knew he was doing something illegal, is significant."

"Because the statute criminalizing false statements requires knowledge that the statement was false and that the defendant was doing something illegal, the attorneys are the easiest targets for DOJ. As attorneys, it will be hard for Eastman, Giuliani and Ellis to claim that they had no idea that they were acting outside the four corners of state law by convening “alternative” electors and submitting them to the Senate even though the state had already submitted official electors. It will also be hard for Clark to argue that he had no idea that what he was doing was illegal, given that his superiors forcefully told him so."-Sarah Jacoby

So much for the phony "disputed electors" bullshit. The "alternate electors" are the ones that are disputed, not the actual official, legal electors that no one in authority disputes.
By elklindo69
#134188
Let's not forget about Ginni Thomas (the wife of a SC justice) who sent emails to Arizona politicians telling them to select a "clean slate of electors" after Biden won the popular vote in Arizona. She was attempting to subvert the will of the voters....in plain sight. She went out and conspired with Eastman to over throw a legitimate election while Justice Thomas has not recused himself from hearing election cases. And Justice Thomas was the only lone dissenter when the SC rejected Trump's effort to withhold documents from the Jan 6 commission.

And conservatives are going to claim there is no conflict of interest???
By johnforbes
#134195
What Clown is mentioning involved the alternate slates selected merely to preserve legal rights.

What Van Jones was talking about, and what Pence could have initiated, would have had to have been resolved by state legislatures in their wisdom (or lack thereof) or partsanship (or lack thereof).
By Clownkicker
#134198
johnny, THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ELECTORS. Get it through your thick skull.

The Biden electors were all correctly chosen per the law based on certified election results, and no Republican election authority in any state claimed they weren't. There wasn't a shred of evidence that there was any election fraud anywhere. So your droning nonsense is just boring partisan bullshit.
By johnforbes
#134209
Clown was half right.

Alternate slates were appointed, as explained previously, in all key swing states to preserve legal rights to give the VP the chance to return to state legislatures.

Van Jones understood that it could have been done, constitutionally and historically, but of course it was not.

Sadly, Clown still doesn't even understand the conceptual framework for this discussion.
By Clownkicker
#134213
I understand the conceptual framework perfectly, dimwit.

You fabricate an illegal slate of electors to disrupt and delay the certification of an election run without any widespread fraud. And when your criminal acts of fabricating phony elector lists are recognized and the election is properly certified based on the count of legally appointed electors' votes that no one disputes, you keep pretending you have a case when you don't.

It's quite clear and simple, dummy. Anything else you are yammering about is just a partisan circle jerk of sore losers.
By johnforbes
#134218
Part of what Clown is saying has some validity.

It is true that the alternative slates are generally "fake" in the sense they are cobbled together to furnish a pretext to get the issue back to state legislatures.

But at least Clown is starting to comprehend the issue here, which leftist Van Jones was intellectually honest enough to delve into.

Is this the ideal way to resolve a close election? Heck no.

Could Pence have driven down that road and still remained within the historical and constitutional framework? It seems so.
By Clownkicker
#134226
No, johnny, the "alternative slates" were fake in all respects. They were not chosen by legal authorities and were not based on certified election results, and they contained lies, which invalidates them on their face.

That's the thing you keep conveniently overlooking, dummy. Electors can ONLY be chosen based on certified results. Anything else is 100% fake.

Any other partisan wishful thinking is irrelevant. You can't make fake lists real by wishing it, the way conservatives always try to do with everything they don't like. Unfortunately for you, you must have election law on your side.

Trump supporters don't have that. They haven't even got any evidence of any election fraud occurred in the first place. They had two months to find some and charge people with the crimes, which might have lent some credence to the fake lists, and thus given Pence reason to hesitate, but they didn't.

Please stop your mindless jacking off all over this forum. It's really gross.
By johnforbes
#134235
No, they were set up to preserve legal rights if indeed the disputed slates were remanded to state legislatures.

That sort of thing is done all the time in the law.

I give Van Jones credit for being curious enough to look into this. I disagree with him on most issues, but that is neither here nor there.

The fact that this could have happened is the reason Congress does want to clarify and redo the Elector Count Act.
By elklindo69
#134246
Trump's cronies created an "alternate slate" of electors with the intent of overthrowing the election....nothing more nothing less. Now you know why Ginni Thomas will not be testifying for the Jan 6 committee....after she said that she would gladly testify.

I wonder if this has anything to do with her effort to establish an "alternate slate" of electors in Arizona???
By Clownkicker
#134267
johnny, to be "legal" the slates of fake electors would have to be written by legal state authorities and must not contain easily provable lies.

The fake electors were not chosen by authorized government entities, were not based on certified election results, and some do contain lies, which is a crime. Lying on legal documents is "disobeying the law, which is neither legal nor constitutional.

Out of courtesy to Clowntoker's dark, demented, de[…]

Elkin's bunker was busted early and often during h[…]

Clowntoker couldn't run a lemonade stand. Clown's[…]

Mr Forbes has never cited AI. In the most charmin[…]

Obliterated what?

As if Trump wasn't using unsecured private email s[…]

Well. A lot of people say a lot of things some tr[…]

I'd like to thank Mr Forbes for posting that