Pence heckled. Called a traitor

[Denny347]

First, I understand the accusation of being a traitor to be figurative (i.e., disloyalty to his constituents) as opposed to treason in the legal sense.

Second, when the Constitution says a plain thing in a plain way, I see no room for argument.

Ah, he's a "traitor" not a Traitor. Sigh. It's a stupid label to be throwing around...watering down the meaning of a SERIOUS charge.
"Pence's excuse was essentially that such a Constitutional question is above his pay grade. In that case, the most correct decision he could have made would have been the rejection of ALL electors from States that sent two delegations. As far as I am concerned, he is just as responsible for what is happening as both Biden and the arm up Biden's ass, and, of course, the practitioners of fraud."
I don't find anywhere in the Constitution the authority/power of the VP to reject ANY electors as you suggest he should have done. The 12th Amendment seems to tell us the VP is a highly paid letter opener and elector questions fall to the Houses to address. Seems logical to eliminate a possible conflict of interest with a VP deciding an election outcome.

 

[BugI02]

Isn't it time that what "establishment / swamp" means is plainly defined?

When you place your personal situation, sinecure, or fortune above that which is clearly good for the country, you are establishment/swamp

When you place your personal situation, sinecure, or fortune above that which you swore an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, you are establishment/swamp

When you defend and enable marxism/communism because it means more power and/or wealth for you, those you supposedly represent be damned, you are establishment/swamp

They exist on both sides of the aisle, but the distribution skews left

 

[BugI02]

First, I understand the accusation of being a traitor to be figurative (i.e., disloyalty to his constituents) as opposed to treason in the legal sense.

Second, when the Constitution says a plain thing in a plain way, I see no room for argument.

This ^^^^^

Third, a mere act of congress is not sufficient to supersede procedures set forth by the Constitution

 

[BugI02]

Ah, he's a "traitor" not a Traitor. Sigh. It's a stupid label to be throwing around...watering down the meaning of a SERIOUS charge.

First definition listed in the CED (color highlighting mine)

traitor
noun
a person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to their own country, social class, beliefs, etc.:

Not every traitor needs to rise to the level of a Benedict Arnold or a Judas to still be worthy of the epithet

 

[BugI02]

The Democrat Party likes to eat their own and one of the reasons Trump was elected. The Republican Party is looking to follow suite and will shoot themselves in the foot come Presidential election time if these Party purity tests don't relax. [just vote uniparty]

Fixy

 

[BugI02]

The one thing the Republican Party was masterful at was Party unity. It is it's strongest weapon against the Democrats. If they are not careful, Party in fighting will weaken them. How quickly the steadfast support for Pence on this very board has turned to venomous hatred.

A great deal of 'steadfast support' for Pence was because he was an early defender (and thought to be a believer in) Trump and MAGA. He was given a subordinate position largely because of that.

Probably only he knows why he really made the decision he did, but from the outside it appears to me he chose what was expedient for his future comfort over what was clearly right, which puts him firmly in the establishment/swamp category. In a 'give me liberty or give me death' moment, he chose to tuck tail and go along with the fiction. YMMV

 

[BugI02]

The one thing the Republican Party was masterful at was Party unity. It is it's strongest weapon against the Democrats. If they are not careful, Party in fighting will weaken them. How quickly the steadfast support for Pence on this very board has turned to venomous hatred.

So, do you find in the conflict between the legitimate objections of 120 or so representatives and several senators, and Pence's actions in consideration of that, that his personal choice was somehow indicative of that party loyalty you seem to remember fondly when you approved of its direction?

If 'The Republican Party' cannot demonstrate loyalty to the direction an overwhelming majority of its constituents wish to go, it deserves its 40 years in the wilderness - just like in 1964

 

[bwframe]

We will not see a Republican President in 2024, too busy kicking each other in the groin.

Trump will never be elected president.

 

[OkieGirl]

Mike Pence IS a Christian, and a good, decent man. Not conservative enough for my liking perhaps, but he IS a good man.

I used to think this, but I feel like when God put him in a position to stand up and request a review for the sake of a nation he bowed. It's 'the road not taken' from the story of Ester in the bible...had she just caved and gone along would things have turned out differently? When we needed him to be strong he didn't have the backbone to request the time to review. I believe that to be a huge problem with his character. He chose to be in the role he was in, and when his name was called to stand up he waffled. So as a human he may pass the 'good man' test but as a political force he has failed his country in the exact moment God ordained for him to stand up.

 

[BugI02]

He was always a neocon, the writing was on the wall.
Higher political ambitions are what happened.

Indeed. Many showed their true colors by treating Trump as an ephemeral phenomenon, without staying power, whom they could use as a rung on the ladder and then betray without consequence

Reality has turned out to be a bit at odds with this theory, and many are scrambling to triangulate as well as minimize Trump's influence where ever possible. They still underestimate the depth of feeling that Trump is the only proven option for fighting against the Marxist drift without quarter, and do so at their political peril IMO

 

[Ingomike]

Mike Pence IS a Christian, and a good, decent man. Not conservative enough for my liking perhaps, but he IS a good man.

MP was a good man, but like any the swamp changes them, twists their understanding of right and wrong.

Mike Pence ran on draining the swamp, only to learn in his time in DC it is a hot tub...

 

[gregr]

MP was a good man, but like any the swamp changes them, twists their understanding of right and wrong.

Mike Pence ran on draining the swamp, only to learn in his time in DC it is a hot tub...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ah, he's a "traitor" not a Traitor. Sigh. It's a stupid label to be throwing around...watering down the meaning of a SERIOUS charge.
"Pence's excuse was essentially that such a Constitutional question is above his pay grade. In that case, the most correct decision he could have made would have been the rejection of ALL electors from States that sent two delegations. As far as I am concerned, he is just as responsible for what is happening as both Biden and the arm up Biden's ass, and, of course, the practitioners of fraud."
I don't find anywhere in the Constitution the authority/power of the VP to reject ANY electors as you suggest he should have done. The 12th Amendment seems to tell us the VP is a highly paid letter opener and elector questions fall to the Houses to address. Seems logical to eliminate a possible conflict of interest with a VP deciding an election outcome.

He would NOT have been deciding the outcome. He would have sent the issue to congress to resolve.

 

[Ingomike]

I mean really, you think that the VP of the United States has the ability to disregard certified votes? Where is that in the Constitution? Pence did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Yes. Please point to me in the constitution where a secretary of state must give their blessing for the electors to be counted. There is no time limit to selection of electors, as directed by the legislature, other than the day the EC votes. They can observe that they don't like how the prescribed selection was tainted and do it differently if they wish as long as their slate is available to vote on the date the EC votes. No "certification" is needed, that is strictly a bureaucratic intrusion.

 

[gregr]

Yes. Please point to me in the constitution where a secretary of state must give their blessing for the electors to be counted. There is no time limit to selection of electors, as directed by the legislature, other than the day the EC votes. They can observe that they don't like how the prescribed selection was tainted and do it differently if they wish as long as their slate is available to vote on the date the EC votes. No "certification" is needed, that is strictly a bureaucratic intrusion.

Damnit. There`s a "like" button, but I`m still searching for the "bullsh*t" button...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Damnit. There`s a "like" button, but I`m still searching for the "bullsh*t" button...

?

 

[KG1]

He would NOT have been deciding the outcome. He would have sent the issue to congress to resolve.

Exactly. He couldn’t just stand up there and unilaterally declare Trump the winner.

 

[Ingomike]

Ah, he's a "traitor" not a Traitor. Sigh. It's a stupid label to be throwing around...watering down the meaning of a SERIOUS charge.
"Pence's excuse was essentially that such a Constitutional question is above his pay grade. In that case, the most correct decision he could have made would have been the rejection of ALL electors from States that sent two delegations. As far as I am concerned, he is just as responsible for what is happening as both Biden and the arm up Biden's ass, and, of course, the practitioners of fraud."
I don't find anywhere in the Constitution the authority/power of the VP to reject ANY electors as you suggest he should have done. The 12th Amendment seems to tell us the VP is a highly paid letter opener and elector questions fall to the Houses to address. Seems logical to eliminate a possible conflict of interest with a VP deciding an election outcome.

He did make a decision, that may just be unconstitutional in itself, he decided which of the competing slates electors to accept, something I do not see designated to the VP in the constitution. He should have thrown it to the House of Representatives to solve the competing slates issue as the constitution prescribes.

 

[Ingomike]

MP along with about half the republican party wanted just to continue business as usual and were determined not to address irregularities up to and including competing slates of electors...

 

[jwamplerusa]

I tried to research the Electoral College process just before January 6th, and found most of what was being said in both the left (MSM) and less biased outlets left a lot to be desired.

A rather brief history of Electoral College disputes is given at: https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Disputedelections.html

Probably the most relevant is the election of 1876.

The closest relevant contemporaneous Constitutional work I found was A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, by William Rawle; which addressed post 12th Amendment practices. It really did not illuminate the 2021 situation for me either.

For me the fundamental problem with January 6th, 2021 was the ambiguity of the election results from critical states. Nothing more was needed than the statistical anomalies and the sworn affidavits of improprieties to call the election in those States into question.

The reality that multiple States reportedly sent two delegations should have been all that was needed for Vice President Pence to not certify the election, and send it back to those States to determine the outcome of the election in their State under their State laws. Send a single delegation, or the Vice President doesn't certify.

Frankly I wouldn't care if we were still waiting for the disputed States to audit and certify our election. That the election is completed with integrity is more important than just about anything else in a Constitutional Republic of Republics. What was done has undermined American citizens confidence in our election process, damage that cannot be undone.

Should the Arizona audit, or any others, identify significant fraud or errors which could have effected the outcome, the damage to this Nation's election process will be substantial, and impact the legitimacy of the current administration substantially for a significant portion of the citizenry. That could, and should, have been avoided at all costs. Making each State fully and unambiguously accountable for what they chose to put forth within the Electoral College should have been an easy choice.