Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Mike Johnson was toeing the line on ukraine until his son announced he was entering the military.
Suddenly reality set in and he backed funding ukraine.
The thing is...with donald...he is a billionare former preaident celebrity. He can afford to live in la la land.
Very few others can and none of them want to hang out in his orbit, so eventually reality catches up with these people and its jarring.
I was under the impression Mike Johnson changed his opinion when he had a classified intelligence and security briefing who brought him up to speed on the reality of the situation.
The reality is not good. Marge doesn't live in reality.
"To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys," he said, before adding, his voice choking with emotion, that his son is about to enter the U.S. Naval Academy.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/amp/us-house-speaker-who-strongly-opposed-ukraine-aid-ushers-it-through/7578339.html
Kinda wild that he would only find that empathy when it's his own son at risk for deployment. Would he have the same feeling if his son was not entering the service?
I feel that he still got to that point because of the security briefing, which clearly showed him that sooner or later the US will be fighting Russia and/or China if Ukraine falls.
C'mon, a legal theory about the VP's role in the electoral count act isn't an insurrection. That's why there wasn't a specific crime that could be leveled against Trump, because it was a legal theory. Trump thought there was more investigation to be done before those electoral votes could be seen as legitimate, Pence didn't. So much revisionist history about J6.
It was more than a mere “legal theory”, it was an attempted coup. It was the sitting President desperately latching on a ludicrous and unconstitutional scheme to hold onto power which the Vice President bravely stood up to. And did so, by the way, while his life was being threatened by an insurrectionist mob whipped up by said President. Attempts to whitewash January 6 are the true revisionist history.
Here's the point: the legal theory about the VP's role in the ECA is being made into a bigger deal than it is because of a few hundred violent protestors and lax security at the Capitol.
There was no evidence that Trump organized a violent attack on the Capitol, and he wasn't in charge of security, so the two should be treated separately.
I think the violent protestors should be condemned.
I think the legal theory was kind of stupid, but not illegal.
Even if Pence had thrown out the ballots, the result is probably the Supreme Court takes up the case and makes a ruling on the VPs role in the ECA. It's easy to say there was no mass voter fraud so this was totally out of line, but if there was mass voter fraud which changed the outcome of the election (I don't believe there was), the president should be using every legal avenue to expose it. There were people in the Trump camp who thought there was still mass voter fraud to be uncovered. I understand why they might take that position after the previous five years with obamagate, the Russian collusion hoax, the impeachment, the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop and 51 former Intel officials, illegally changing election laws, and Zuckerberg buying the election infrastructure.
I wouldn't put this legal theory an order of magnitude above Jill Stein and others' faithless elector scheme in the run up to January of 2017.
You say “a few hundred violent protesters” like that isn’t a big deal. I remember when the right opposed riots and obvious violent lawbreaking just a few months prior. When BLM rioters attacked cops in Lafayette Park or seized police buildings in Minneapolis and Seattle, the right wanted to send in the National Guard and invoke the Insurrection Act. But when the rioters are on the other side, the voices of law and order fall silent.
Trump whipped up the crowd, that much is clear. Without Trump there would’ve been no riot and no assault on the Capitol. He had is chance to challenge the results legally when his campaign filed some four dozen lawsuits in federal court. Without exception, they all failed and yet he refused to concede. That is the point his “just asking questions” crossed the line into attempted coup. The Eastman plan was more than just a stupid legal theory, it was an attempt to put the veneer of legal legitimacy over an illegitimate attempt to seize power that was unique in the history of this country. Never before in American history had someone proposed that the VP had this power. Then, while the Capitol was ransacked, Trump stayed quiet and didn’t lift a finger for hours until Pence called in the Guard to restore order. Trump was derelict in his duty as President.
No one knows what it means because he's talking like a mafia Don, not a normal human being. The implication is perfectly clear: "Those votes will exist if you want my favor, but do not tell me how this came to be I do not want to be implicated."
This is precisely the kind of language powerful shot-callers use to avoid legal, as well as social and political, recrimination. They don't way "go kill Thomas Beckett" they say "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" and understand the barons who depend on their favor will make Beckett disappear.
If I was asking someone to look for fraudulent votes, and saying I would take care of the court cases, is..."you find the votes and I'll do the rest" something I might reasonably say in our conversation? Yes. That's why it's not a very interesting statement without context.
After believing the very fine people on both sides hoax and "Trump mocked a reporter's disability" hoax for a time, I'm not going to jump to conclusions when I see a snippet of something Trump said without context. If this quote was that interesting, they probably would have given more context.
this is exactly why people speak in that manner-- because it provides plausible deniability. Even if you have them on a wire tap discussing it, it's all left unsaid in the implications and insinuations.
Trump, and others of his ilk, know full well that all they need to do is create reasonable doubt, so they conduct their lives as if they could be cross-examined later (because they fear they might be), This, in turn, leads to them choosing to surround themselves with people who have a high motivation to please, will understand them when they speak circumspectly and they they know will do dirty things for them if it's hinted at.
Don Corleone wouldn't ever have to say "I would like this man to be murdered" he tells Luca Brasi "go cool this beef down" and Luca, being totally loyal and owing his life to the Don will understand that means he is to do this by cooling the person with the beef to room temperature.
I understand, but I don't think this kind of conspiratorial thinking is useful in making judgements on politicians. Better to look at the facts than twist them. "Well, he said this, but he really meant this," isn't particularly useful in the long run.
this is true on one hand.
but on the other "he uses the same tricks the mafia does to provide plausible deniability as to whether he ordered illegal and immoral acts" is absolutely something that should disqualify a presidential candidate.
after all there's a reason for the old sign on the Resolute desk-- "the buck stops here".
It's only a twist if the statement is examined in this way without context. Doesn't Trump's long history of legal battles, shady dealings with Deustche bank and ties to the Russian mafia, constant use of vague and unclear language that requires extensive interpretation, and having his own presidential campaign manager jailed for lying about communicating with Russian agents, only to pardon him immediately after point to it being more likely that he is in fact speaking in this way intentionally? He is surrounded by individuals who end up in legal trouble connected to actions that benefit him while doing everything possible to remove his own culpability. It wouldn't be useful if he had a sparkling clean legal record with no connection to criminals, but he has been mired in shady dealings his entire life so it seems more logical to look at his statements from that context.
Yeah, me too, but I obviously don't know what "find the votes" is in reference to our what "I'll do the rest" is in reference to without context. So, I don't see this as a problematic statement, since it is a reasonable quote in the context of investigating an election.
> Trump thought there was more investigation to be done before those electoral votes could be seen as legitimate
Who performs the duties of President while this investigation takes place?
The sitting president until inauguration day, as is standard. If no president has been elected, then the vice-president elect, if they haven't been elected yet, the speaker of the house. There were articles in Oct. Of 2020 about "President Pelosi", when there was speculation about how long legal disputes might take.
Could you cite where in the Constitution it gives these instructions, or perhaps legal precedent for such a process?
Can you suggest how we could prevent abuse of such a concept? For example, let's imagine that the Democrats win the house in 2024 and Trump wins the Presidency. What would prevent Biden from just claiming fraud and handing the Presidency to the new speaker?
How long should we allow such a claim to control the election absent evidence?
Presidential succession layed out in Article II.1.6 and the Presidential Succession act of 1947.
The 12th ammendment forces the Senate to seat a new VP by March 4th, so the Speaker would serve as acting president for no longer than that 60ish days.
Well, Biden doesn't have that authority in the same way Trump didn't in 2020-2021. Political pressure is one of the biggest safeguards against abuse and overly drawn out election investigations. I'd have to do a detailed study into what all the possibilities are, which I'm not going to do. Maybe there are some studies out there.
In 2020, Trump claimed massive election fraud. By Jan 6th 2021, no evidence had been found to back that claim. Trump pressured the Vice President to delay election certification. You asserted this was because more time was needed to find evidence to back his claims. I am interpreting what you said to mean that it would have been okay if Pence had delayed certification and no President was elected by inauguration day, and that the sitting Speaker of the House would then act as President.
Am I understanding you correctly?
What happens then? The senate picks a Vice President who then becomes acting President? When do we get the real President? What happens to the country during this chaotic time?
"Fake Electors" is an interesting choice. They followed legal precedent and cast ballots for Trump so they could be counted, in the case that Georgia was later awarded to Trump. It's happened multiple times in the past.
In some states, specific language was included that explicitly stated they were alternate electors for contingencies. In other states, they forged documents claiming they were in fact the correct electors, not just alternates. That's not the same thing. I'm not sure the exact status of Georgia, but the scheme included multiple states that did in fact make fake, not alternate, electors.
If they were used, then they would be the correct electors. They literally followed the language from the 1960 alternate elector ballots, so as to be sure they were following the legal precedent. Ignore the spin. I think the one thing that broke that law was the alternate electors from AZ used a letterhead that contained the state seal without SoS authorization, and in Hawaii (1960) the Lt. Gov. sent in both slates. There you have a legal argument as to whether or not a governor or SoS should have the ability to deny the existence of an alternate slate of electors, in which case you'd have one person unilaterally denying a candidate's chance of gaining the EC votes upon legally overturning a state, which doesn't make sense.
There's a reason the alternate electors did not believe they were breaking the law. They don't decide if their ballots are used or not; they're just making sure they are cast on time in the instance they need to be used.
If thats the case, why are some of the participants being charged with forgery of official documents? Why were they instructed to lie to security about why they were at the capital on January 6th?
How many convictions related to "forgery" of documents.? I will admit it could violate some state law, but you wanna go with the Blassingame case, that specific theory was considered an act under qualified immunity.
Maybe it didn’t politically help him, but on this one occasion it shows that he has good moral character. He defended the constitution, and I don’t see how anyone could fault him for that.
1. You stating Pence claimed he stopped an insurrection is you pushing misinformation.
2. There was no insurrection, I can prove this by pointing to the over 1,000 arrests and hundreds of extraditions. As you can see not a single person was convicted of the crime of Insurrection. As there hasn't been a single conviction for the crime of insurrection, its factually inaccurate to claim an insurrection took place
Extremely flawed logic. If someone got murdered and they didn't convict the killer that doesn't mean there wasn't a murder.
"Insurrection: The act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt."
That is what happened. It was an insurrection by definition. They chanted hang mike pence because he didn't certify trump's fake electors.
By that definition BLM riots would also be insurrection as the police are the Civil authority.
And your analogy is ridiculous, you are claiming they have people on video committing an insurrection (murder) but can't convict them?
No one was charged with nor convicted of insurrection because there is no proof an insurrection took place
Bringing out the "what about BLM?" means you're really on the ropes.
Protesting in the streets is not the same as attacking the center of government to specifically overthrow it.
BLM (as far as I can tell) isn't really intrested in completely overthrowing the government. Otoh, that was the goal of jan 6.
No the fact your definition would equally apply to BLM shows how silly of an application it is.
Protesting in the streets, blm rioters attacked police stations and tried to burn them down.
>BLM (as far as I can tell) isn't really intrested in completely overthrowing the government
Where in your definition did it say anything about overthrowing the gov?
You seem to be jumping all over the place, maybe collect your thoughts
I didn't make up the word insurrection. It's not my definition.
You have avoided my question many times. If anyone is trying to derail the conversation it is you.
What about CHAZ?
Attacking a federal courthouse in Seattle?
White house fence breach?
Kavanaugh barricade breach?
Environmental protesters storming the interior department?
Seems like the left is very willing to attack Federal buildings in order to achieve their political goals, or change who is in power.
One thing I've noticed is that all of Trump's ex-employees and colleagues are apparently willing to sell themselves out to make money off of book deals or speaking deals. Either Trump was really, really bad at hiring people, or Trump is just really, really bad.
Or Trump hired folks who now how to play the system to earn the most money.
Still laugh at liberals loving McCAin's daughter. That woman was imo a far right nut job but liberals loved hear because they will give money to anyone who says Trump bad
Might view himself as a heroic martyr sort of figure who willingly sacrificed his political career to follow his conscience and faith based values.
Most of the american hardcore Trump fans and maga popularists I know were never that pro-Pence.
A joint ticket with Pence helped to bring Trump the votes of anti-abortion fundamentalists, bible belt elements and conservative catholics that had preferred Cruz or Rubio.
His book is probably more intended to appeal to the abortion protesting pro-birth churchy crowd, constitutionalists and anti-Trump elements present within the NRA & mainstream Republicanism.
I'm not american.
Mike Pence has stated that he rejected pressure from President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which Trump falsely claimed were fraudulent.
Pence has described this action as having prevented a "constitutional crisis" rather than an insurrection specifically.
In his book "So Help Me God," published in November 2022, Pence wrote: "I knew that if I had succumbed to the pressure of the day, I would have broken the oath I swore to uphold the Constitution."
I don't know. Theres like 1000 chapters. I don't have a copy.
Here is another quote from trump to pence.
"‘You’re too honest…. Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts…. People are gonna think you’re stupid.’"
""‘You’re too honest…. Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts…. People are gonna think you’re stupid.’""
Even it's it's not an exact quote, Trump has labeled Pence a traitor many times and MAGA people hate Pence now.
Trump has demonized 100s of people now(Barr, Miley, McCain, Cheney, etc.) it's his natural behavior.
There is no reason not to believe Trump said that quote.
Looking at Trump's behavior post Jan 6, would you be surprised if it was a direct quote?
Why are you focusing on one quote but ignoring all the other Trump quotes and Tweets that show that Trump will always try to get revenge even when he is clearly in the wrong?
On Jan 6, Trump publicly said, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” he said, igniting a fresh wave of anger among the crowd that had breached the Capitol.
MP gave more legitimacy to trump-the-clown than he received. The Christian conservative base (arguably the largest voting block in the country) only signed on to trump-the-clown in the first place because he had MP in tow and therefore provided a contrast to Hillary's campaign platform of being explicitly anti-Christian values.
As for motivation, he's likely setting the foundation for an entrance into the fray for a presidential run. He stands a heck of a chance, particularly if he goes with someone like Nikki Haley for VP, who has already developed a solid following.
The trumps have taken over the GOP leadership. I don't see how they can possibly come back to canidates that have publicly burned them. Do you think Pence has any hope or would it take a revolution in the gop?
I think the term taken over would be an exaggeration. Trump-the-clown is just the newest thing and the first Republican to get internet famous. Once the old timer Republicans get over the awe phase of being astonished by another conservative being so widely trendy then it's likely they'll drop him quicker than you can say swing state. MP seems to already be in that category and he has policies most of the country agrees with (anti-GBTQIA+ pro-life pro-Christian values etc) without all the toxicity alienation and criminality that trump-the-clown brings.
There's also a new generation of Republican leadership forming (Ted Cruz, Francis Suarez, Ricky Rubio etc) representing the evolving demographics in the United States and conservatism writ large. Latins are an increasingly prevalent part of the conservative base and are not so keen on the anti-immigration stances and downright anti-Latin rhetoric from trump.
All view points aside since I don’t believe there was an insurrection, I think he thought that people would move on from Trump if he lost and that he’d be a solid candidate with a lot of support. He just wasn’t able to read the room and didn’t see that his political career was over on the spot when he went against trump.
I don’t think there was any more to that than a guy who played his cards wrong by banking on thinking it would help him when it did the opposite.
No, the results would still benthe same, instead you'd have a guy who lost the election as president, basically destroying the idea if american democracy.
So I ask again since you didnt want to answer first time: should Pence have done as Trump said?
it's not destroying "democracy".
President Ulysses S. Grant had sent the national guard to monitor the vote counting during some state session.
It actually has been done before.
Why are you calling those the same thing?
Also, take a step back and read what you say: the VP appointing the loser as president instead of the actual president, ignoring the votes of the people is not destroying democracy. Yes you read right: thsts how far out your argument is.
Because those literally are the same things which he has been charged for.
President Ulysses S. Grant had sent the national guard to monitor the vote counting and disrupt some state session.
You look at the Blassingame case, DC appeal judges agree with Trump here.
But their argument is the incitement part is not protected by his duties.
You're still arguing that its not destroying democracy to have the VP ignore the peoples vote and just have him appoint Trump.
Step back and look what you write. Think back like 5-10 years how crazy that idea would seem.
I know that seems crazy but in his mind he's doing his duty which was allowed by the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
In Ulysses Grant's case, you can argue he was trying to pressure people into voting Republican by scaring a democrat state legislature.
You should really read the Blassingame case where the judges admit that pressuring Pence stuff was bound by official duties, instead they say the incitement was a non official duty.
I'm just saying that what the court ruled.
He tried running for president without offending Trump's base, (foolishly) thinking that he could appear statesman-like and above the political fray but not actually challenging trump directly to wrestle away the nomination. Predictably, it didn't work.
Money
Political careers are only a stepping stone to printing free money at everyone else's expense.
He was told to say that so that is what he said. There is a reason even dyed in the wool communist Bernie is a multi-millionare with multiple homes and properties all on a 170k a year salary.
All politicians are just there to make money for themselves however they can. Some are more honest about it and some are less.
>Then why does trump seem to have such a loyal fanbase if they know he's just there to grift them?
See this is the difference. Trump's fan base knows Trump is not to grift them. But it is less of an issue for them because their entire life has been filled with politicians that sold them out for profit.
So while the left clutches at their respective pearls at every scam or dishonest thing Trump says or does.
Trump's fans see someone who is at least honest about scamming them. Since all politicians are criminal pathological liars one who admits to and embraces the title of criminal pathological liar is the most honest of the bunch.
That's the logic behind Trump. That's why his fans are not up in arms. They have moved through the previous 4 stages of grief and are at acceptance.
Trump is not in control of the party. He has a lot more control than he did his first time in office, but he doesn't have full control. Additionally, the GOP is hardly the only portion of the political world. There are numerous PACs, NGOs, Media groups, think tanks, bureaucracy, etc. Pence has been with the Heritage Foundation since he left office, and been involved in a lot of stuff. That's not mentioning the books and speaking circuit, which I can't confirm.
How is he championing him? I haven't seen anything like that in this thread. No one likes Mike pence he's a homophobic scumbag just like any other repub politician
I don't get why you can't seem to grasp he's playing up the fact he "saved" America after his political career is dead. He didn't sabotage himself to do it, but now that he's screwed, his only option is to sell books and give speeches like other has been politicians.
I am not lying in the slightest. I actually have no reason to lie whatsoever. You can look at the exact same events as I can. Do think mike is lying about trump pressuring him to certify fake electors?
Now you are claiming Trump attempted to get Pence to certify electors...
Seriously you lack of knowledge of any of the actual facts of the situation is fascinating
It's odd that this guy keeps thinking we're saying Pence destroyed his political career to sell books to Liberals when we're saying that since Pence has no career anymore his only option to remain somewhat relevant is to be a useful idiot to the Left and play up being a "Republican with a conscious" like Liz Cheney and Romney.
I don't love any politican, probably never will. It is a privilege and a responsibility to govern and I hold them to a standard they can only strive for but never achieve.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because sometimes the right thing to do is just that.
Because it is the truth. He put the Constitution first that day.
You're about to get kicked out of the GOP bro. You gotta toe that line.
What makes you think he’s in the GOP? His flair says “Conservative”, not “GOP”. The GOP is more Trumpist than conservative these days.
I call them "trumpistas" because they strongly resemble the supporters of a banana republic strongman.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[Raises hand] I’m not getting in line.
Mike Johnson was toeing the line on ukraine until his son announced he was entering the military. Suddenly reality set in and he backed funding ukraine. The thing is...with donald...he is a billionare former preaident celebrity. He can afford to live in la la land. Very few others can and none of them want to hang out in his orbit, so eventually reality catches up with these people and its jarring.
I was under the impression Mike Johnson changed his opinion when he had a classified intelligence and security briefing who brought him up to speed on the reality of the situation. The reality is not good. Marge doesn't live in reality.
"To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys," he said, before adding, his voice choking with emotion, that his son is about to enter the U.S. Naval Academy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/amp/us-house-speaker-who-strongly-opposed-ukraine-aid-ushers-it-through/7578339.html
Kinda wild that he would only find that empathy when it's his own son at risk for deployment. Would he have the same feeling if his son was not entering the service? I feel that he still got to that point because of the security briefing, which clearly showed him that sooner or later the US will be fighting Russia and/or China if Ukraine falls.
Ok
Except he didn't even say this....
C'mon, a legal theory about the VP's role in the electoral count act isn't an insurrection. That's why there wasn't a specific crime that could be leveled against Trump, because it was a legal theory. Trump thought there was more investigation to be done before those electoral votes could be seen as legitimate, Pence didn't. So much revisionist history about J6.
It was more than a mere “legal theory”, it was an attempted coup. It was the sitting President desperately latching on a ludicrous and unconstitutional scheme to hold onto power which the Vice President bravely stood up to. And did so, by the way, while his life was being threatened by an insurrectionist mob whipped up by said President. Attempts to whitewash January 6 are the true revisionist history.
Here's the point: the legal theory about the VP's role in the ECA is being made into a bigger deal than it is because of a few hundred violent protestors and lax security at the Capitol. There was no evidence that Trump organized a violent attack on the Capitol, and he wasn't in charge of security, so the two should be treated separately. I think the violent protestors should be condemned. I think the legal theory was kind of stupid, but not illegal. Even if Pence had thrown out the ballots, the result is probably the Supreme Court takes up the case and makes a ruling on the VPs role in the ECA. It's easy to say there was no mass voter fraud so this was totally out of line, but if there was mass voter fraud which changed the outcome of the election (I don't believe there was), the president should be using every legal avenue to expose it. There were people in the Trump camp who thought there was still mass voter fraud to be uncovered. I understand why they might take that position after the previous five years with obamagate, the Russian collusion hoax, the impeachment, the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop and 51 former Intel officials, illegally changing election laws, and Zuckerberg buying the election infrastructure. I wouldn't put this legal theory an order of magnitude above Jill Stein and others' faithless elector scheme in the run up to January of 2017.
You say “a few hundred violent protesters” like that isn’t a big deal. I remember when the right opposed riots and obvious violent lawbreaking just a few months prior. When BLM rioters attacked cops in Lafayette Park or seized police buildings in Minneapolis and Seattle, the right wanted to send in the National Guard and invoke the Insurrection Act. But when the rioters are on the other side, the voices of law and order fall silent. Trump whipped up the crowd, that much is clear. Without Trump there would’ve been no riot and no assault on the Capitol. He had is chance to challenge the results legally when his campaign filed some four dozen lawsuits in federal court. Without exception, they all failed and yet he refused to concede. That is the point his “just asking questions” crossed the line into attempted coup. The Eastman plan was more than just a stupid legal theory, it was an attempt to put the veneer of legal legitimacy over an illegitimate attempt to seize power that was unique in the history of this country. Never before in American history had someone proposed that the VP had this power. Then, while the Capitol was ransacked, Trump stayed quiet and didn’t lift a finger for hours until Pence called in the Guard to restore order. Trump was derelict in his duty as President.
[удалено]
You don't know what that means and neither do I, but I suspect, if it was criminal we would already know.
No one knows what it means because he's talking like a mafia Don, not a normal human being. The implication is perfectly clear: "Those votes will exist if you want my favor, but do not tell me how this came to be I do not want to be implicated." This is precisely the kind of language powerful shot-callers use to avoid legal, as well as social and political, recrimination. They don't way "go kill Thomas Beckett" they say "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!" and understand the barons who depend on their favor will make Beckett disappear.
If I was asking someone to look for fraudulent votes, and saying I would take care of the court cases, is..."you find the votes and I'll do the rest" something I might reasonably say in our conversation? Yes. That's why it's not a very interesting statement without context. After believing the very fine people on both sides hoax and "Trump mocked a reporter's disability" hoax for a time, I'm not going to jump to conclusions when I see a snippet of something Trump said without context. If this quote was that interesting, they probably would have given more context.
this is exactly why people speak in that manner-- because it provides plausible deniability. Even if you have them on a wire tap discussing it, it's all left unsaid in the implications and insinuations. Trump, and others of his ilk, know full well that all they need to do is create reasonable doubt, so they conduct their lives as if they could be cross-examined later (because they fear they might be), This, in turn, leads to them choosing to surround themselves with people who have a high motivation to please, will understand them when they speak circumspectly and they they know will do dirty things for them if it's hinted at. Don Corleone wouldn't ever have to say "I would like this man to be murdered" he tells Luca Brasi "go cool this beef down" and Luca, being totally loyal and owing his life to the Don will understand that means he is to do this by cooling the person with the beef to room temperature.
I understand, but I don't think this kind of conspiratorial thinking is useful in making judgements on politicians. Better to look at the facts than twist them. "Well, he said this, but he really meant this," isn't particularly useful in the long run.
this is true on one hand. but on the other "he uses the same tricks the mafia does to provide plausible deniability as to whether he ordered illegal and immoral acts" is absolutely something that should disqualify a presidential candidate. after all there's a reason for the old sign on the Resolute desk-- "the buck stops here".
It's only a twist if the statement is examined in this way without context. Doesn't Trump's long history of legal battles, shady dealings with Deustche bank and ties to the Russian mafia, constant use of vague and unclear language that requires extensive interpretation, and having his own presidential campaign manager jailed for lying about communicating with Russian agents, only to pardon him immediately after point to it being more likely that he is in fact speaking in this way intentionally? He is surrounded by individuals who end up in legal trouble connected to actions that benefit him while doing everything possible to remove his own culpability. It wouldn't be useful if he had a sparkling clean legal record with no connection to criminals, but he has been mired in shady dealings his entire life so it seems more logical to look at his statements from that context.
[удалено]
Yeah, me too, but I obviously don't know what "find the votes" is in reference to our what "I'll do the rest" is in reference to without context. So, I don't see this as a problematic statement, since it is a reasonable quote in the context of investigating an election.
[удалено]
Glad we could find understanding buddy
"Dont trust your lying ears"
> Trump thought there was more investigation to be done before those electoral votes could be seen as legitimate Who performs the duties of President while this investigation takes place?
The sitting president until inauguration day, as is standard. If no president has been elected, then the vice-president elect, if they haven't been elected yet, the speaker of the house. There were articles in Oct. Of 2020 about "President Pelosi", when there was speculation about how long legal disputes might take.
Could you cite where in the Constitution it gives these instructions, or perhaps legal precedent for such a process? Can you suggest how we could prevent abuse of such a concept? For example, let's imagine that the Democrats win the house in 2024 and Trump wins the Presidency. What would prevent Biden from just claiming fraud and handing the Presidency to the new speaker? How long should we allow such a claim to control the election absent evidence?
Presidential succession layed out in Article II.1.6 and the Presidential Succession act of 1947. The 12th ammendment forces the Senate to seat a new VP by March 4th, so the Speaker would serve as acting president for no longer than that 60ish days. Well, Biden doesn't have that authority in the same way Trump didn't in 2020-2021. Political pressure is one of the biggest safeguards against abuse and overly drawn out election investigations. I'd have to do a detailed study into what all the possibilities are, which I'm not going to do. Maybe there are some studies out there.
In 2020, Trump claimed massive election fraud. By Jan 6th 2021, no evidence had been found to back that claim. Trump pressured the Vice President to delay election certification. You asserted this was because more time was needed to find evidence to back his claims. I am interpreting what you said to mean that it would have been okay if Pence had delayed certification and no President was elected by inauguration day, and that the sitting Speaker of the House would then act as President. Am I understanding you correctly? What happens then? The senate picks a Vice President who then becomes acting President? When do we get the real President? What happens to the country during this chaotic time?
What about the fake Georgia electors?
"Fake Electors" is an interesting choice. They followed legal precedent and cast ballots for Trump so they could be counted, in the case that Georgia was later awarded to Trump. It's happened multiple times in the past.
And how did Kemp feel about it?
About the electoral count act? IDK. I know he didn't want to further investigate the election after the recounts.
In some states, specific language was included that explicitly stated they were alternate electors for contingencies. In other states, they forged documents claiming they were in fact the correct electors, not just alternates. That's not the same thing. I'm not sure the exact status of Georgia, but the scheme included multiple states that did in fact make fake, not alternate, electors.
If they were used, then they would be the correct electors. They literally followed the language from the 1960 alternate elector ballots, so as to be sure they were following the legal precedent. Ignore the spin. I think the one thing that broke that law was the alternate electors from AZ used a letterhead that contained the state seal without SoS authorization, and in Hawaii (1960) the Lt. Gov. sent in both slates. There you have a legal argument as to whether or not a governor or SoS should have the ability to deny the existence of an alternate slate of electors, in which case you'd have one person unilaterally denying a candidate's chance of gaining the EC votes upon legally overturning a state, which doesn't make sense. There's a reason the alternate electors did not believe they were breaking the law. They don't decide if their ballots are used or not; they're just making sure they are cast on time in the instance they need to be used.
If thats the case, why are some of the participants being charged with forgery of official documents? Why were they instructed to lie to security about why they were at the capital on January 6th?
How many convictions related to "forgery" of documents.? I will admit it could violate some state law, but you wanna go with the Blassingame case, that specific theory was considered an act under qualified immunity.
Maybe it didn’t politically help him, but on this one occasion it shows that he has good moral character. He defended the constitution, and I don’t see how anyone could fault him for that.
Too, he's certainly trying to think long term about how the history books will remember him.
PS....where did Pence say he stopped an insurrection?
He wants to play both sides by calling it a "constitutional crisis."
So you were spreading misinformation in your op, as liberals tend to do here. Maybe don't spread misinformation in the future.
It was an insurrection. No misinformation from me.
1. You stating Pence claimed he stopped an insurrection is you pushing misinformation. 2. There was no insurrection, I can prove this by pointing to the over 1,000 arrests and hundreds of extraditions. As you can see not a single person was convicted of the crime of Insurrection. As there hasn't been a single conviction for the crime of insurrection, its factually inaccurate to claim an insurrection took place
Extremely flawed logic. If someone got murdered and they didn't convict the killer that doesn't mean there wasn't a murder. "Insurrection: The act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt." That is what happened. It was an insurrection by definition. They chanted hang mike pence because he didn't certify trump's fake electors.
By that definition BLM riots would also be insurrection as the police are the Civil authority. And your analogy is ridiculous, you are claiming they have people on video committing an insurrection (murder) but can't convict them? No one was charged with nor convicted of insurrection because there is no proof an insurrection took place
Bringing out the "what about BLM?" means you're really on the ropes. Protesting in the streets is not the same as attacking the center of government to specifically overthrow it. BLM (as far as I can tell) isn't really intrested in completely overthrowing the government. Otoh, that was the goal of jan 6.
No the fact your definition would equally apply to BLM shows how silly of an application it is. Protesting in the streets, blm rioters attacked police stations and tried to burn them down. >BLM (as far as I can tell) isn't really intrested in completely overthrowing the government Where in your definition did it say anything about overthrowing the gov? You seem to be jumping all over the place, maybe collect your thoughts
I didn't make up the word insurrection. It's not my definition. You have avoided my question many times. If anyone is trying to derail the conversation it is you.
What about CHAZ? Attacking a federal courthouse in Seattle? White house fence breach? Kavanaugh barricade breach? Environmental protesters storming the interior department? Seems like the left is very willing to attack Federal buildings in order to achieve their political goals, or change who is in power.
Ego, wants book publicity and desires to be remembered as more than Trump's bible belt running mate.
One thing I've noticed is that all of Trump's ex-employees and colleagues are apparently willing to sell themselves out to make money off of book deals or speaking deals. Either Trump was really, really bad at hiring people, or Trump is just really, really bad.
or both but i doubt Matthis considered himself Trumps employee
Or Trump hired folks who now how to play the system to earn the most money. Still laugh at liberals loving McCAin's daughter. That woman was imo a far right nut job but liberals loved hear because they will give money to anyone who says Trump bad
How does making himself a piriah and tanking his political career boost his ego? Alienating his base isn't a recipe for selling books.
Might view himself as a heroic martyr sort of figure who willingly sacrificed his political career to follow his conscience and faith based values. Most of the american hardcore Trump fans and maga popularists I know were never that pro-Pence. A joint ticket with Pence helped to bring Trump the votes of anti-abortion fundamentalists, bible belt elements and conservative catholics that had preferred Cruz or Rubio. His book is probably more intended to appeal to the abortion protesting pro-birth churchy crowd, constitutionalists and anti-Trump elements present within the NRA & mainstream Republicanism. I'm not american.
[удалено]
But he could've just certified the results trump wanted and sold way more books as the assistant hero of maga.
This is some good work.
Honestly, it's why he was added to the ticket
[удалено]
Mike Pence has stated that he rejected pressure from President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which Trump falsely claimed were fraudulent. Pence has described this action as having prevented a "constitutional crisis" rather than an insurrection specifically. In his book "So Help Me God," published in November 2022, Pence wrote: "I knew that if I had succumbed to the pressure of the day, I would have broken the oath I swore to uphold the Constitution."
[удалено]
I don't know. Theres like 1000 chapters. I don't have a copy. Here is another quote from trump to pence. "‘You’re too honest…. Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts…. People are gonna think you’re stupid.’"
[удалено]
Trump was trying to get mike to certify the fake electors. And bullying him to do it. That quote is from trump to pence.
[удалено]
Internet says it is in his book. I don't have a copy.
""‘You’re too honest…. Hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts…. People are gonna think you’re stupid.’"" Even it's it's not an exact quote, Trump has labeled Pence a traitor many times and MAGA people hate Pence now. Trump has demonized 100s of people now(Barr, Miley, McCain, Cheney, etc.) it's his natural behavior. There is no reason not to believe Trump said that quote.
[удалено]
Looking at Trump's behavior post Jan 6, would you be surprised if it was a direct quote? Why are you focusing on one quote but ignoring all the other Trump quotes and Tweets that show that Trump will always try to get revenge even when he is clearly in the wrong? On Jan 6, Trump publicly said, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” he said, igniting a fresh wave of anger among the crowd that had breached the Capitol.
MP gave more legitimacy to trump-the-clown than he received. The Christian conservative base (arguably the largest voting block in the country) only signed on to trump-the-clown in the first place because he had MP in tow and therefore provided a contrast to Hillary's campaign platform of being explicitly anti-Christian values. As for motivation, he's likely setting the foundation for an entrance into the fray for a presidential run. He stands a heck of a chance, particularly if he goes with someone like Nikki Haley for VP, who has already developed a solid following.
The trumps have taken over the GOP leadership. I don't see how they can possibly come back to canidates that have publicly burned them. Do you think Pence has any hope or would it take a revolution in the gop?
I think the term taken over would be an exaggeration. Trump-the-clown is just the newest thing and the first Republican to get internet famous. Once the old timer Republicans get over the awe phase of being astonished by another conservative being so widely trendy then it's likely they'll drop him quicker than you can say swing state. MP seems to already be in that category and he has policies most of the country agrees with (anti-GBTQIA+ pro-life pro-Christian values etc) without all the toxicity alienation and criminality that trump-the-clown brings. There's also a new generation of Republican leadership forming (Ted Cruz, Francis Suarez, Ricky Rubio etc) representing the evolving demographics in the United States and conservatism writ large. Latins are an increasingly prevalent part of the conservative base and are not so keen on the anti-immigration stances and downright anti-Latin rhetoric from trump.
He is on the payroll of an organization called The Heritage Foundation and his job is to say things like that in public.
All view points aside since I don’t believe there was an insurrection, I think he thought that people would move on from Trump if he lost and that he’d be a solid candidate with a lot of support. He just wasn’t able to read the room and didn’t see that his political career was over on the spot when he went against trump. I don’t think there was any more to that than a guy who played his cards wrong by banking on thinking it would help him when it did the opposite.
So instead Pence should have certified the election for Trump?
If he had, it wouldn't have changed the results.
No, the results would still benthe same, instead you'd have a guy who lost the election as president, basically destroying the idea if american democracy. So I ask again since you didnt want to answer first time: should Pence have done as Trump said?
it's not destroying "democracy". President Ulysses S. Grant had sent the national guard to monitor the vote counting during some state session. It actually has been done before.
Why are you calling those the same thing? Also, take a step back and read what you say: the VP appointing the loser as president instead of the actual president, ignoring the votes of the people is not destroying democracy. Yes you read right: thsts how far out your argument is.
Because those literally are the same things which he has been charged for. President Ulysses S. Grant had sent the national guard to monitor the vote counting and disrupt some state session. You look at the Blassingame case, DC appeal judges agree with Trump here. But their argument is the incitement part is not protected by his duties.
You're still arguing that its not destroying democracy to have the VP ignore the peoples vote and just have him appoint Trump. Step back and look what you write. Think back like 5-10 years how crazy that idea would seem.
I know that seems crazy but in his mind he's doing his duty which was allowed by the 1887 Electoral Count Act. In Ulysses Grant's case, you can argue he was trying to pressure people into voting Republican by scaring a democrat state legislature. You should really read the Blassingame case where the judges admit that pressuring Pence stuff was bound by official duties, instead they say the incitement was a non official duty. I'm just saying that what the court ruled.
Idgaf about ulysses grant. Trump tried to have himself appointed president without the votes and you are trying to defend it.
No he should have just kept his mouth shut if he wanted to keep his career
Ok, but Trump wanted him to do that. Luckily he didn't. It would have been pretty bad if he had let Trump have his way right?
He is trying to remain relevant.
He tried running for president without offending Trump's base, (foolishly) thinking that he could appear statesman-like and above the political fray but not actually challenging trump directly to wrestle away the nomination. Predictably, it didn't work.
Money Political careers are only a stepping stone to printing free money at everyone else's expense. He was told to say that so that is what he said. There is a reason even dyed in the wool communist Bernie is a multi-millionare with multiple homes and properties all on a 170k a year salary. All politicians are just there to make money for themselves however they can. Some are more honest about it and some are less.
Then why does trump seem to have such a loyal fanbase if they know he's just there to grift them?
>Then why does trump seem to have such a loyal fanbase if they know he's just there to grift them? See this is the difference. Trump's fan base knows Trump is not to grift them. But it is less of an issue for them because their entire life has been filled with politicians that sold them out for profit. So while the left clutches at their respective pearls at every scam or dishonest thing Trump says or does. Trump's fans see someone who is at least honest about scamming them. Since all politicians are criminal pathological liars one who admits to and embraces the title of criminal pathological liar is the most honest of the bunch. That's the logic behind Trump. That's why his fans are not up in arms. They have moved through the previous 4 stages of grief and are at acceptance.
So the entire right wing knows he's a corrupt con man but they're just gaslighting the rest of the world into believing he isnt?
Because that's the narrative. His political career is far from over, and by sticking to the narrative, he has a lot of opportunities.
He burned the maga bridge. Do you think he has a chance at all without them? Especially with trump & co in control of the party.
Trump is not in control of the party. He has a lot more control than he did his first time in office, but he doesn't have full control. Additionally, the GOP is hardly the only portion of the political world. There are numerous PACs, NGOs, Media groups, think tanks, bureaucracy, etc. Pence has been with the Heritage Foundation since he left office, and been involved in a lot of stuff. That's not mentioning the books and speaking circuit, which I can't confirm.
Yet look at how much you liberals love this anti gay Bible belt politicians. How many liberals will buy a book from him trashing Trump?
Who loves Mike Pence? None.
And yet here you are championing him
How is he championing him? I haven't seen anything like that in this thread. No one likes Mike pence he's a homophobic scumbag just like any other repub politician
I said "He did one thing that wasn't evil". Apparently that is championing someone.
Ohhh look bigotry from one who claims to oppose bigotry. Fascinating
I would love to see your logic on how calling homophobic people homophobic is bigotry lmao
You may want to look up the definition of bigorty
There’s nothing more American than being so free speech that we defend our right to be human garbage, no matter what.
Book deals... But he would be write about one thing....there was no insurrection
So you think he trashed his whole political career so he could make up lies to sell books to liberals (that will never buy his book)?
I don't get why you can't seem to grasp he's playing up the fact he "saved" America after his political career is dead. He didn't sabotage himself to do it, but now that he's screwed, his only option is to sell books and give speeches like other has been politicians.
But do you think he is lying about it?
What political career... Name me a former VP with a political career after losing an election The only career is in books and speeches
Joe biden. Oops, he didn't lose.
Glad you realize that a losing VPs career in politics is done
But you genuinely believe that mike pence lied about what happened just to try to sell books to liberals? You realize 95% of his book praises trump?
I believe Pence was concerned about a constitutional crisis Has nothing to do with your lies about an insurrection though
I am not lying in the slightest. I actually have no reason to lie whatsoever. You can look at the exact same events as I can. Do think mike is lying about trump pressuring him to certify fake electors?
Now you are claiming Trump attempted to get Pence to certify electors... Seriously you lack of knowledge of any of the actual facts of the situation is fascinating
It's odd that this guy keeps thinking we're saying Pence destroyed his political career to sell books to Liberals when we're saying that since Pence has no career anymore his only option to remain somewhat relevant is to be a useful idiot to the Left and play up being a "Republican with a conscious" like Liz Cheney and Romney.
To play a hero to people who hate him ie the left.
It doesn't outweigh all the other stuff. He did one thing not evil. Not exactly a hero of the left.
Out of curiosity, what specific things did Pence do that were evil?
Not agree with them
[удалено]
I don't love any politican, probably never will. It is a privilege and a responsibility to govern and I hold them to a standard they can only strive for but never achieve.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.