Is The 1/6 Commission Coming?

#8,677
#8,677
RockyTop85 said:
If you know that what they suggested is so bad that they should be disbarred (but not a coup?) then why is the President of the United States held to a lower standard?
Click to expand...
In this world of Trump indictments for sentence structure and punctuation - why hasn't Trump been charged for insurrection, treason, or whatever other charge for J6?
 
#8,679
#8,679
RockyTop85 said:
Are you conceding that Trump knew that these efforts to retain power after losing an election were unlawful?
Click to expand...
No I am not. I am agreeing with @volfanhill that he followed the guidance of his legal counsel.

I am encouraging you and your peers to charge him for any crimes that you and others think he committed related to the J6 protest.
 
#8,680
#8,680
CobbVol said:
No I am not. I am agreeing with @volfanhill that he followed the guidance of his legal counsel.

I am encouraging you and your peers to charge him for any crimes that you and others think he committed related to the J6 protest.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult question: if Random Guy on the Internet knows that the lawyers advice was criminal and thinks they should be disbarred and charged then why shouldn’t the President of The United States know the same?

If a lawyer tells someone that it’s not illegal to walk onto a loaded schoolbus and openly masturbate to completion, do you think they should get a pass for doing it or should they just know that the lawyer is a crackpot and keep it in their pants?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#8,681
#8,681
whodeycin85 said:
Agree with all but the last sentence...the electors have been done previously in other elections...both submitted ,(not used) and those that help overturn. Hawaii...now the verbiage on the letters they submitted are what is getting them charged in a few states where they left out the very important part about pending court cases being overturned....basically a these are not valid unless x happens.
Click to expand...
It was over in December when the electoral college cast their votes and tallied the result. That process is where the president is elected. There is absolutely nothing that any alternate electors showing up on Jan 6 could have changed. The fat lady had sung and got in her limo and left long before Jan 6
 
#8,682
#8,682
NorthDallas40 said:
It was over in December when the electoral college cast their votes and tallied the result. That process is where the president is elected. There is absolutely nothing that any alternate electors showing up on Jan 6 could have changed. The fat lady had sung and got in her limo and left long before Jan 6
Click to expand...
Disagree...before it was made a ceremonial act..the VP did have the ability to reject electors with the approval of 2/3....it would have failed for sure...but he still had the ability. But J6 never had a plan to overturn the election...the riot was just a protest that got outta hand...not much different then when Kavanaugh hearing were breached by protesters..and they pounded on the locked doors.
 
#8,683
#8,683
RockyTop85 said:
It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult question: if Random Guy on the Internet knows that the lawyers advice was criminal and thinks they should be disbarred and charged then why shouldn’t the President of The United States know the same?

If a lawyer tells someone that it’s not illegal to walk onto a loaded schoolbus and openly masturbate to completion, do you think they should get a pass for doing it or should they just know that the lawyer is a crackpot and keep it in their pants?
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
so, again, why is Trump held to a lower standard than you, a person who seemingly is going to need this conversation explained to him?
Click to expand...
I did not know the law about electors or how that processes worked then. I doubt Trump did. His legal team gave advice He went with it. If his lawyers knowingly gave him illegal council then I assume thats grounds for disbarment. Since they are getting hammered in court i assume that they did in fact give professional council that one with a legal background should have known was dubious at best
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#8,684
#8,684
whodeycin85 said:
Disagree...before it was made a ceremonial act..the VP did have the ability to reject electors with the approval of 2/3....it would have failed for sure...but he still had the ability. But J6 never had a plan to overturn the election...the riot was just a protest that got outta hand...not much different then when Kavanaugh hearing were breached by protesters..and they pounded on the locked doors.
Click to expand...
Ok we disagree. However process is clear and the vote was finalized in December that is a fact.
 
#8,685
#8,685
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok we disagree. However process is clear and the vote was finalized in December that is a fact.
Click to expand...
Correct...let say hypothetically there was fraud found and the court cases weren't dismissed...the states still certified in December..now say the cases prove election fraud...but they still certified the elections..so on J6 should Pence have certified a fraudulent election or use hos power to reject those states where the courts found fraud?? All hypothetically of course...
With your opinion there is nothing Pence could have done but certify correct,? Because the states certified it even though to was found fraudulent after.
Now that is all that will happen going forward..
 
#8,686
#8,686
RockyTop85 said:
It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult question: if Random Guy on the Internet knows that the lawyers advice was criminal and thinks they should be disbarred and charged then why shouldn’t the President of The United States know the same?

If a lawyer tells someone that it’s not illegal to walk onto a loaded schoolbus and openly masturbate to completion, do you think they should get a pass for doing it or should they just know that the lawyer is a crackpot and keep it in their pants?
Click to expand...
My guess is Trump did not understand the advice they were offering him in challenging the election.

So again, if it is criminal why has he not be charged by Jack Smith or any other prosecutor?
 
#8,687
#8,687
whodeycin85 said:
Correct...let say hypothetically there was fraud found and the court cases weren't dismissed...the states still certified in December..now say the cases prove election fraud...but they still certified the elections..so on J6 should Pence have certified a fraudulent election or use hos power to reject those states where the courts found fraud?? All hypothetically of course...
With your opinion there is nothing Pence could have done but certify correct,? Because the states certified it even though to was found fraudulent after.
Now that is all that will happen going forward..
Click to expand...
Had Pence actually rejected any of the states electors THAT would have been an attempted coup. The process you outline to the best of my knowledge has never resulted in a successful rejection. Even Al Gore rejected the objections that if successful would have made him president.
 
#8,688
#8,688
NorthDallas40 said:
Had Pence actually rejected any of the states electors THAT would have been an attempted coup. The process you outline to the best of my knowledge has never resulted in a successful rejection. Even Al Gore rejected the objections that if successful would have made him president.
Click to expand...
Hawaii 1960 electors were overturned..because of a court case won by Kennedy
 
#8,690
#8,690
NorthDallas40 said:
What states had not certified their vote counts by the December electoral college meeting in 2020? And what states had active recounts ongoing?
Click to expand...
They had all certified in December...but Kennedy had a court case involving a recount in Hawaii that was he won after the December certification..on J6 Nixon rejected those electors from Hawaii and with the 2/3 vote, Kennedy were then certified.
 
#8,691
#8,691
whodeycin85 said:
They had all certified in December...but Kennedy had a court case involving a recount in Hawaii that was he won after the December certification..on J6 Nixon rejected those electors from Hawaii and with the 2/3 vote, Kennedy were then certified.
Click to expand...
The state of Hawaii itself sent a petition to Congress to overturn the prior Republican electors and instead install the Democrat electors resulting from their recount. No such state government sanctioned activity occurred in 2020. The 1960 and 2020 cases are not equivalent and I see nothing showing it as precedent. If it were then it would have been employed in 2000 also.
 
#8,692
#8,692
NorthDallas40 said:
The state of Hawaii itself sent a petition to Congress to overturn the prior Republican electors and instead install the Democrat electors resulting from their recount. No such activity occurred in 2020. The 1960 and 2020 cases are not equivalent and I see nothing showing it as precedent. If it were then it would have been employed in 2000 also.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were 100% alike...I'm point is that Pence had the power to reject the electors of any state with a pending court case...again..what if those cases were still pending on J6...? See now if something happened after the electors certification there is no fail safe..J6 is ceremonial now..there is no recourse whether a state possibly or intentionally certified a fraudulent election.. regardless of court outcomes..
 
#8,693
#8,693
whodeycin85 said:
I didn't say they were 100% alike...I'm point is that Pence had the power to reject the electors of any state with a pending court case...again..what if those cases were still pending on J6...? See now if something happened after the electors certification there is no fail safe..J6 is ceremonial now..there is no recourse whether a state possibly or intentionally certified a fraudulent election.. regardless of court outcomes..
Click to expand...
And I pointed out that had never happened in the history of our country and wasn’t going to happen in 2020. 1960 was unique and not equivalent to 2000 or 2020. You had the state government itself saying hey we got it wrong you need to use these electors instead. That isn’t precedent and had Pence actually done what Trump wanted him to do that would have been an attempted coup as far as I’m concerned. Short of that and with everything else that did happen, Jan 6 was not a coup it was just a lot of venting and bad decisions getting acted out by a mob of angry protesters. The certified election results were never in danger of being impacted. Pence did his constitutional duty.
 
#8,694
#8,694
NorthDallas40 said:
And I pointed out that had never happened in the history of our country and wasn’t going to happen in 2020. 1960 was unique and not equivalent to 2000 or 2020. You had the state government itself saying hey we got it wrong you need to use these electors instead. That isn’t precedent and had Pence actually done what Trump wanted him to do that would have been an attempted coup as far as I’m concerned. Short of that and with everything else that did happen, Jan 6 was not a coup it was just a lot of venting and bad decisions getting acted out by a mob of angry protesters. The certified election results were never in danger of being impacted. Pence did his constitutional duty.
Click to expand...
We agree on most. But some we view different..I'm cool with that...Im looking at it from the point of Pence could have rejected them...not whether he should have or if it made a diffenve or not .just his ability at the time .which he had. Otherwise Nixon would have won Hawaii..
 
#8,695
#8,695
whodeycin85 said:
We agree on most. But some we view different..I'm cool with that...Im looking at it from the point of Pence could have rejected them...not whether he should have or if it made a diffenve or not .just his ability at the time .which he had. Otherwise Nixon would have won Hawaii..
Click to expand...
One minor nit. The 3 electors from Hawaii had zero impact on the election result. Kennedy won the election with over 300 electors. So the Hawaii situation was a documentation task for posterity which needed to be done they needed to be accurate. So extending that to try and get Pence to reject electors with no state government making a case to overturn their electors and when these overturned electors would actually affect the election outcome? That is a huge stretch. It’s apples to oranges on any chance of precedent and the impact of following thru would be unprecedented
 
#8,696
#8,696
NorthDallas40 said:
One minor nit. The 3 electors from Hawaii had zero impact on the election result. Kennedy won the election with over 300 electors. So the Hawaii situation was a documentation task for posterity which needed to be done they needed to be accurate. So extending that to try and get Pence to reject electors with no state government making a case to overturn their electors and when these overturned electors would actually affect the election outcome? That is a huge stretch. It’s apples to oranges on any chance of precedent and the impact of following thru would be unprecedented
Click to expand...
It was a huge stretch, but at that time the VP did have the power to reject them...there were further processes, voting etc...but he could have..
Think about this. Let's say the election is basically tied between Trump and harris. Georgia is a swing state. Trump is challenging the vote in Georgia. But as we know court case is take a while and by January 6th the court is case is still pending and the state electors decide to certify the election with Harris at the winter and make her the new president of the United states. Now on January 6th the electors can't be rejected. So now say that the court case goes through and it finds out there was enough fraudulent voting in Georgia to overturn the election therefore granting Trump the elections electors meaning he should have won. We now have no mechanism to go back and change those results.
 
#8,697
#8,697
whodeycin85 said:
It was a huge stretch, but at that time the VP did have the power to reject them...there were further processes, voting etc...but he could have..
Think about this. Let's say the election is basically tied between Trump and harris. Georgia is a swing state. Trump is challenging the vote in Georgia. But as we know court case is take a while and by January 6th the court is case is still pending and the state electors decide to certify the election with Harris at the winter and make her the new president of the United states. Now on January 6th the electors can't be rejected. So now say that the court case goes through and it finds out there was enough fraudulent voting in Georgia to overturn the election therefore granting Trump the elections electors meaning he should have won. We now have no mechanism to go back and change those results.
Click to expand...
If the state in question has certified their electors and the state itself has no open recount ongoing then everything else is background noise. There are specific dates pinned to the timeline for a reason. There is a safe harbor date prior to electoral college voting and if all the states are certified with no open state sanctioned recount then the result is final.
 
#8,698
#8,698
RockyTop85 said:
It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult question: if Random Guy on the Internet knows that the lawyers advice was criminal and thinks they should be disbarred and charged then why shouldn’t the President of The United States know the same?

If a lawyer tells someone that it’s not illegal to walk onto a loaded schoolbus and openly masturbate to completion, do you think they should get a pass for doing it or should they just know that the lawyer is a crackpot and keep it in their pants?
Click to expand...

Is this in reference to Pence or the silly J6 thing? (context)

The issue with the first one is this wouldn't have been illegal statutorily from what I could tell even if true... the second one could be illegal depending on the facts. (what are the facts?)

What Pence had to do is an administrative function under the position, even if he didn't elect to do it.... there was still recourse i.e. impeachment of the VP. I'm not sure the legal advice from what I could gather would be improper let alone illegal in nature. Its just something you don't do unless you are very much in the right i.e. political as there is no recourse via the Courts. This is similar to why Obama, Biden and Clinton are not in jail for murdering Americans.

do you think they should get a pass for doing it or should they just know that the lawyer is a crackpot and keep it in their pants?
Click to expand...

Since the U.S. has been giving free passes to murders and you don't seem to really mind.... what's the problem?
 
Last edited:
#8,699
#8,699
volfanhill said:
I did not know the law about electors or how that processes worked then. I doubt Trump did. His legal team gave advice He went with it. If his lawyers knowingly have him illegal council then I assume thats grounds for disbarment. Since they are getting hammered in court i assume that they did in fact give professional council that one with a legal background should have known was dubious at best
Click to expand...

Appreciate the response.

I’d be shocked if you didn’t at least know it was wrong at the time, but I respect your opinions (one of the reasons this one bewilders me) and understand theres room here for a distinction between intuiting that it’s wrong and later learning that it’s criminal. I just don’t think that makes a difference for Trump.

The thing that would make a difference - he doesn’t understand how elections work on a fundamental “loser goes home” level - is not believable. Even as bad as he looks he’s clearly functioning above that level.

If that’s right, then he knew he was trying to do something that was fundamentally wrong. The fact that the minority of lawyers who told him it might work failed to fully consider the consequences is just a risk you take when you go shopping for lawyers who will accept money to enable your bad behavior.

I’d be fine with him getting a pardon on the criminal charges in exchange for a new law being passed that imposes criminal penalties with clearer definitions of the prohibited conduct. But the idea that he’s not personally responsible for his own actions seems incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill and BernardKingGOAT
#8,700
#8,700
NorthDallas40 said:
If the state in question has certified their electors and the state itself has no open recount ongoing then everything else is background noise. There are specific dates pinned to the timeline for a reason. There is a safe harbor date prior to electoral college voting and if all the states are certified with no open state sanctioned recount then the result is final.
Click to expand...
So basically if a state fraudulently certified the electors but if proven to have been fraudulent after J6. What avenue is there, or do we just have to suck it up and accept a fraudulent election??
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top