Mike Pence now speaks up against trump

[scook]

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.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

I***8217;m sure you***8217;re right bgreene - we should definitely view the AP as purveyors of ***8220;OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FACT***8221;, a phrase that you appear to have just made up, over the ACTUAL fact that lawyers, who study these issues, don***8217;t agree on the law.

You have no idea of what is and isn***8217;t a FACT, but in your naive ignorance and arrogance, you***8217;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***8217;t and you***8217;re not.

WRONG AGAIN SCOOK as I correctly posted, while trump lawyers argue over select areas of the law, the FACT is Pence had NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY over voting result process .

[bgreene]

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.

[scook]

I may be wrong, but I thought the request of Mike Pence was to withhold certification, since every attempt to investigate fraudulent voting was blocked, in the majority of cases, on procedure, not for lack of evidence.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

I may be wrong, but I thought the request of Mike Pence was to withhold certification, since every attempt to investigate fraudulent voting was blocked, in the majority of cases, on procedure, not for lack of evidence.

Oh you’re wrong alright scook:
1. Trump lost by wide margin
2. Each of our Depts of Security and Government Dem and Republican confirmed the result
3. Pence did not have any authority otherwise
4. Each of trumps audits reconfirmed the result that Biden won
5. There was NO evidence approaching any amount of inaccuracy that would change the result

And yet …..you and many trump lovers side with NOTHING but empty conspiracy theories over our proven systems, facts and laws of our nation.

[scook]

And it’s outside your capacity to respond directly to an honest post.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

And it’s outside your capacity to respond directly to an honest post.

Wrong again scook - I provided answer with link .