Trump Had Role in Weighing Proposals to Seize Voting Machines

[soap box]

When the situation is dire, no matter how the slim the chance is, if it is your only chance, you take it.

For instance, I see people wearing masks when I venture into the world that are not N95 masks.

What they have on their face(s) is useless by any rational standard, but they still wear them.

This is informed by medical professionals and demonstrated by statistics.

I understand the process. I have linked, in another post, to the statement in the Constitution, the 12th Amendment and the statute that supports the 12th amendment.

Sure, the 12th amendment is there , ready to go if a congress in the future needs it.

Yes but you did not quote the part where it says that the VP can reect state EC slates by themsleves.
Please quote the part or parts in any federal document that says that the VP can reject state EC slates by him or herself.
I want to be able to read that part myself.

 

[soap box]

You make two claims here in this deranged and border line insane post that are interesting:

1. The military would not stand behind Trump. Can you please link to the official order given to the military by Trump that was not obeyed?

2. That officials to prevent riots had been removed and replaced with "Trump flunkies". Can you please link to a credible source that documents this?

This article explains how trump was not involved in discussions with the pentagon and not involved in calling up the NG. Nancy isn't in the article.

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol

The response to the siege on the Capitol was mired in red tape.

www.militarytimes.com

He was talking about the pentagon officials who were replaced in November:

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol

The response to the siege on the Capitol was mired in red tape.

www.militarytimes.com

"It is hard to overstate just how dangerous high-level turnover at the Department of Defense is during a period of presidential transition," he said in a statement. "The top policy professional in the department resigning the day after the secretary of defense was fired could mark the beginning of a process of gutting the DoD."

"I would say the civilian senior leaders are very worried, but they don't know who's next or what's happening," the official said. "You can't even mention transition at the Pentagon."

 

[code1211]

Trump wasn’t going to go peacefully, regardless of what he ”believed”

He told his disciples that the election was rigged before the first vote was cast. He also declared that he would accept no result other than his victory.

He did exactly the same thing in 2016. But all that went quiet when he wound up on top of the EC.

What Donald Trump believed ”in his heart” is irrelevant.

Trump is not the decision maker. A reality that, even now, seems to elude him.

More than 30 (almost all red) states have changed their voting laws to make sure the wrong people have a hard time voting, and that their votes wouldn’t count in gerrymandered districts designed to give the seat to a Republican. This is the entire thrust of the GOP operations. Taht is very very well documented.

Your view on this is biased and one sided.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that "More than 30 (almost all red) states have changed their voting laws to make sure the wrong people have a hard time voting" means simply requiring people to prove who they are?

What measures in particular do you believe makes it harder for "the wrong people" to vote. Who are "the wrong people"?

 

[soap box]

You are free to believe whatever it is that makes you happy as a result of your beliefs.

However, saying it's so don't make it so.

Are you talking to yourself again?

sorry had to amputate the BS - sometimes people just cut the crap. tough SH**

 

[soap box]

In what post have I EVER stated that a VP "unilaterally reject EC slates"?

Pro tip: I never posted this.

You are arguing against points that I have never presented.

The "illegal crackpot dumbass theory" that you imagine was employed was never employed.

Why do you continue to rail on this idiotic and fantasy world stupidity?

You claimed it was legal and it's not. You don't realize what happened or why, and so you don't recognize that your claim that it was a legal move means that trump wanted Pence to reject state EC slates by himself.
Again your protest and contradiciton happens because you are unaware of the process and procedure.

 

[code1211]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kamala? Kamala Harris? Is that you?

 

[soap box]

What are you raving about?

There was nothing that Trump did or tried to do that was not done using legal means.

What's this then? You used the word legal. This post claims that trump did or tried legal things and that is not correct. Do you realize why his actions and words were unconstitutional?
The part you don't realize is that it indeed was unconstitutional, and we call that illegal.

Please cite the Constitution or any federal document that claims that the VP has the authority to reject state EC slates by him or herself.

 

[soap box]

What did he want to do? I don't know.

What DID he do? He went home to his mansion and his super model wife.

He lost all those court cases, because there was no evidence to present after it was shown in preliminary hearings that the plaintiffs had no evidence.
Trump also knew that the state legislatures had not convened to change their slate.
Trump also knew that the dems in the House would never agree to a state EC slate objection.

That was his dead end to be president again and that is why he liked John Eastman so much all the sudden in the first week of January '20.

 

[code1211]

I'm glad that you seem to be happy.

 

[Cork]

You are wandering around in the world of make believe trying to support your fanciful, contrived conclusions, but the things you believe never happened IN THE REAL WORLD.

You are free to believe whatever it is that makes you happy as a result of your beliefs.

However, saying it's so don't make it so.

This is why I stop debating with trumpers.

Refuse to talk about the facts and everything is fake news when it doesn't match what they "believe in".

Keep living in that world buddy.

 

[Warcok]

You got him now, boys!

 

[code1211]

Sure, the 12th amendment is there , ready to go if a congress in the future needs it.

Yes but you did not quote the part where it says that the VP can reect state EC slates by themsleves.
Please quote the part or parts in any federal document that says that the VP can reject state EC slates by him or herself.
I want to be able to read that part myself.

Please quote the post in which I EVER said that the VP could do what you describe.

 

[code1211]

This article explains how trump was not involved in discussions with the pentagon and not involved in calling up the NG. Nancy isn't in the article.

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol

The response to the siege on the Capitol was mired in red tape.

www.militarytimes.com

He was talking about the pentagon officials who were replaced in November:

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol

The response to the siege on the Capitol was mired in red tape.

www.militarytimes.com

"It is hard to overstate just how dangerous high-level turnover at the Department of Defense is during a period of presidential transition," he said in a statement. "The top policy professional in the department resigning the day after the secretary of defense was fired could mark the beginning of a process of gutting the DoD."

"I would say the civilian senior leaders are very worried, but they don't know who's next or what's happening," the official said. "You can't even mention transition at the Pentagon."

The cut and paste you posted makes it sound like these folks resigned.

You said they were fired.

There is a huge difference between the two actions.

 

[code1211]

You claimed it was legal and it's not. You don't realize what happened or why, and so you don't recognize that your claim that it was a legal move means that trump wanted Pence to reject state EC slates by himself.
Again your protest and contradiciton happens because you are unaware of the process and procedure.

When did I EVER post that the VP could reject slates of electors and that it was legal?

 

[code1211]

What's this then? You used the word legal. This post claims that trump did or tried legal things and that is not correct. Do you realize why his actions and words were unconstitutional?
The part you don't realize is that it indeed was unconstitutional, and we call that illegal.

Please cite the Constitution or any federal document that claims that the VP has the authority to reject state EC slates by him or herself.

You are adding insanity to your understanding of what I post.

If you would like to argue points that I have not presented, why are you quoting my posts?

 

[soap box]

Please quote the post in which I EVER said that the VP could do what you describe.

You are not informed enough to realize that your claim the trump and white house attempts at overturning the election involved having Pence reject EC slates . It was not legal. But you don't understand why.

 

[soap box]

You are not informed enough to realize that your claim the trump and white house attempts at overturning the election involved having Pence reject EC slates . It was not legal. But you don't understand why.

I already quoted you saying that it was legal.

 

[soap box]

The cut and paste you posted makes it sound like these folks resigned.

You said they were fired.

There is a huge difference between the two actions.

You are confusing me with someone else. I think your comment is a deflection and I don't see your comment as the key issue anyway. Again you are trying to find irrelevant points in the attempt to obscure the true question.

 

[soap box]

Please quote the post in which I EVER said that the VP could do what you describe.

I already did

 

[soap box]

You are adding insanity to your understanding of what I post.

If you would like to argue points that I have not presented, why are you quoting my posts?

Because you are so uninformed that you don't understand what you are missing.

 

[soap box]

The cut and paste you posted makes it sound like these folks resigned.

You said they were fired.

There is a huge difference between the two actions.

Code, reading is not for the eyes, it's for the brain. That was a quote from the article, but you thought I said they were fired. And you also claim that Marc Esper is still defense secretary? Again you are pitifully uniformed but you blurt out anyway.

"The shake-up at the Pentagon continues after President Trump "terminated" Defense Secretary Mark Esper, replacing him with his counterterrorism chief, Christopher Miller, who was being briefed on issues and operations."

 

[poweRob]

 

[code1211]

He lost all those court cases, because there was no evidence to present after it was shown in preliminary hearings that the plaintiffs had no evidence.
Trump also knew that the state legislatures had not convened to change their slate.
Trump also knew that the dems in the House would never agree to a state EC slate objection.

That was his dead end to be president again and that is why he liked John Eastman so much all the sudden in the first week of January '20.

You are assuming much and seem to know absolutely nothing yet you are trying to sell it really hard.

I find it difficult to believe that a zero like Joe Biden garnered more votes than any other candidate, proposition, proposal or referendum in the history of voting.

I find it confusing that Pennsylvania would remove the only verification is used and replace it with nothing.

I find it odd that "Drop Boxes" were suddenly used in so many venues despite the absolute lack of security or ability to verify the voters IDs.

I find it odd that the down ticket offices all indicated that the voters disliked the Democrats in state and Federal positions.

Legality and rationality parted ways during the last election.

Given all that, do I assert that Joe Biden is not legitimate? No.

When lying thieves are the folks running the show, the result will almost always be that a lying thief is the winner.

 

[code1211]

This is why I stop debating with trumpers.

Refuse to talk about the facts and everything is fake news when it doesn't match what they "believe in".

Keep living in that world buddy.

You present evidence that supports one thing and say that it supports something entirely different.

That's not my fault.

You hate Trump. I get it.

Again, not my fault.

 

[soap box]

You are assuming much and seem to know absolutely nothing yet you are trying to sell it really hard.

I find it difficult to believe that a zero like Joe Biden garnered more votes than any other candidate, proposition, proposal or referendum in the history of voting.

I find it confusing that Pennsylvania would remove the only verification is used and replace it with nothing.

I find it odd that "Drop Boxes" were suddenly used in so many venues despite the absolute lack of security or ability to verify the voters IDs.

I find it odd that the down ticket offices all indicated that the voters disliked the Democrats in state and Federal positions.

Legality and rationality parted ways during the last election.

Given all that, do I assert that Joe Biden is not legitimate? No.

When lying thieves are the folks running the show, the result will almost always be that a lying thief is the winner.

tell it to the judge.

Is the Vice President legally allowed to reject EC slates by him or herself?