![]() |
Quote:
Trump said he wouldn’t have time to play golf as President but he actually played more golf than the man he said should not have. YOU MAKE EXCUSE SCOOK “ oh but he worked on the golf course….. There’s no “ but “ here just the FACTS that you deny |
If you think that is important, you shouldn’t be without adult supervision. It’s a lie, instead of simply finding out something different?
Can you grasp the difference between an important fact and a completely irrelevant one? |
Quote:
Listen you control freak - I’ll write about the facts and if you can just keep whining |
Your disrespectful, completely off topic, completely inaccurate, non-responses are drivel and make you look really foolish. Any reasonable person reading my post and your response would discount anything you say as the blathering of an incompetent.
|
Quote:
FACT is Pence is correct - he had no right to stop the rightfully elected transfer of power to Biden. So Pence said NO to trumps lie . |
Quote:
Are you a lawyer schooled in congressional law Greene? Because if you are not may I respectfully suggest that you shut up because you don't know what you're talking about and are only making (continuing) a fool of yourself. . |
Quote:
And it’s not an opinion it’s OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FACT that Pence had no power over election determination . You’re wrong again . https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-275776015398 |
I’m sure you’re right bgreene - we should definitely view the AP as purveyors of “OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FACT”, a phrase that you appear to have just made up, over the ACTUAL fact that lawyers, who study these issues, don’t agree on the law.
You have no idea of what is and isn’t a FACT, but in your naive ignorance and arrogance, you’re not dissuaded from proclaiming huge amounts of BS as FACTS. If anyone, not already as deluded as yourself, found your nonsense persuasive, you would be dangerous. Thankfully they don’t and you’re not. |
Quote:
|
Pence had NO POWER to stop the legal process.
As Pence stated - TRUMP WASWRONG Michael McConell, law professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, said there are some ambiguities within the Electoral Count Act that could be shored up. For example, there is some ambiguity in the language referring to how Congress handles competing slates of electors from a state when the law says only those that are “regularly given” shall be counted, he said. And HERE IT IS : But NONE of the ambiguities could be reasonably interpreted as giving the vice president the power to unilaterally overturn an election’s results, said McConell, a former federal appellate judge. He said there was no serious basis for that claim. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.