ffs you cant argue like a man but you have to make up names.i dont give a **** what woodward or costa think but everyone they reported on confirmed they said what they said. the fact is the electors were illegitimate because their elections were fraudulent. gfy if you want to continue to make up lies about me.

To be fair to everyone here, there were a lot of questions about what could happen if there were challenges to the election itself. And legal scholars were divided on many of those questions before the election. So the seeds for confusion were sowed.

From October 2020.

Quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution and the 1887 Electoral Count Act govern the counting of electoral votes and any related disputes. The electors will meet on Dec. 14 to cast votes, which are then counted by Congress on Jan. 6 in a process overseen by Vice President Mike Pence in his role as Senate president.

What are dueling electors?

States with close contests between Republican President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden could produce competing slates of electors, one certified by the governor and the other by the legislature.

The risk of this happening is heightened in the battleground states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which have Democratic governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.

Some election law experts are concerned that an unprecedented volume of mailed-in votes and legal challenges will delay the outcome of the election for weeks, creating an extended period of uncertainty.

---

Quote:

---

Trump has repeatedly said the election is rigged and made unfounded attacks on mail-in voting, which tends to favor Democrats.

If early returns show a Trump lead, experts say the president could press Republican-controlled legislatures to appoint electors favorable to him, claiming the initial vote count reflects the true outcome.

Governors in those same states could end up backing a separate slate of electors pledged to Biden if the final count showed the Democratic candidate had won.

Both sets of electors would meet and vote on Dec. 14 and the competing results would be sent to Congress.

Which set of electors would prevail?

---

Quote:

---

Both chambers of Congress could accept the same slate of electors, which would almost certainly put the matter to rest.

The chambers could also split, which is more likely if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and Democrats hold onto their House majority.

If lawmakers cannot agree on a set of electors, the country will find itself in uncharted territory.

The Electoral Count Act, often described by academics as "unintelligible," seems to favor the slate of electors certified by the state's governor, according to Ned Foley, a professor at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

But Foley notes that some scholars and an analysis by the Congressional Research Service have rejected that conclusion.

Academics have sketched out several scenarios. Under one, Pence as president of the Senate could throw out both sets of a state's electors. Another contemplates that the House of Representatives would end up choosing between Biden and Trump. There is even a scenario in which the Speaker of the House, currently Democrat Nancy Pelosi, could become acting president.

---

Quote:

---

Would the U.S. Supreme Court get involved?

The Supreme Court may be called upon to interpret the Electoral College Act to break any deadlock.

A Supreme Court ruling helped resolve the 2000 election in favor of George Bush over Al Gore, but that case was about a recount in Florida and the decision was reached before electors met to cast their votes.

"I think there will be legal challenges," said Jessica Levinson, director of Loyola Law School's Public Service Institute. "But I could see a court saying this would really be better left up to Congress."

---

And there was historical precedent.

Quote:

---

In 1876, dueling electors in three states were deadlocked until a deal was brokered days before Inauguration Day.

The dispute was resolved after Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for withdrawing U.S. troops left over from the Civil War from Southern states.

"I hope it's a very low probability event but 1876 is a reminder that it is not zero and we have come very close to falling over that cliff in our history," Foley said.

---

Link

Until SCOTUS is called upon to rule on the Electoral Count Act (which is practically impossible due to standing issues) who is right and who is wrong is still undecided. And since none of the states actually submitted dueling slates of electors, the question was not raised.

However, that did not prevent individual House and Senate member from wanting to put objections to the electors in certain states on the Congressional Record. But the incursion into the Capitol cut that effort off.

Ah well there's lots of "questions". Let's just let the VP pick the next president, seemz legit.

Brunetto Latini said:

---

Ah well there's lots of "questions". Let's just let the VP pick the next president, seemz legit.

---

If you think that is what I said, you need your eyes checked.

Cassius said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

who is Quayle?

---

This is a joke, right?

Man, I'm old.

---

no, honest Q.

Surely not Dan Quayle?!

---

Wait. So Q is Quayle?!?!

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21397551/031137348875.pdf


John Eastman was spot on and because the democrats illegality was never aired the dullard became an illegitimate president that the majority of americans know is a fraud and he has cause more pain and suffering than any other president in history and he's only been president for a year.

NTSA.

Did you even read the emails?

Eastman himself is no longer defending the legality of this, but Internet troll still are apparently

This Gregory email to Eastman sums it up:

Quote:

---

John, very respectfully, I just don't in the end believe that there is a single Justice on the United States Supreme Court, or a single judge on any of our Courts of Appeals, who is as "broad minded" as you when it comes to the irrelevance of statutes enacted by the United States Congress, and followed without exception for more than 130 years. They cannot be set aside except when in direct conflict with the Constitution that our revered Framers handed us. And very respectfully, I don't think that a single one of those Framers would agree with your position either. Certainly, Judge Luttig has made clear he does not. And there is no reasonable argument that the Constitution directs or empowers the Vice President to set a procedure followed for 130 years before it has even been resorted to.

Lincoln suspended the writ when the body entrusted with that authority was out of session, and submitted it to them as soon as it returned. I understand your argument that several state legislatures were out of session. But the role for state legislatures has for our entire history ended at the time that electoral certificates are submitted to Congress. Congress has debated submissions, including competing submissions. It has never once referred them out to state legislatures to decide.
I respect your heart here. I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up.

And thanks to your bullsh*t-, we are now under siege.

---

"Very respectfully" is lawyer/speak for "FU"

kudos BB for taking the time to type out that email for the edit. thats dedication

Greg didn't have a backbone to do the right thing. There would be judges lining up to support the decision had Mike gone through with it and the country would probably be in a much better place.

Look at the timestamps. under siege but still having an email debate through the entire "insurrection"

The court uses the crime-fraud exception.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0_4.pdf

This is an interesting ruling in that it says that Trump and his lawyer Eastman most likely broke the law.

Quote:

---

Attempts to obstruct

Section 1512(c)(2) requires that the obstructive conduct have a "nexus . . . to a specific
official proceeding" that was "either pending or was reasonably foreseeable to the person
when he engaged in the conduct."208 President Trump attempted to obstruct an official proceeding by launching a pressure campaign to convince Vice President Pence to disrupt the Joint Session on January 6. President Trump facilitated two meetings in the days before January 6 that were explicitly tied to persuading Vice President Pence to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress. On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a meeting in the Oval Office with Vice President Pence, the Vice President's counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President's Chief of Staff Marc Short.209 At that meeting, Dr. Eastman presented his plan to Vice President Pence, focusing on either rejecting electors or delaying the count.210 When Vice President Pence was unpersuaded, President Trump sent Dr. Eastman to review the plan in depth with the Vice President's counsel on January 5.211 Vice President Pence's counsel interpreted Dr. Eastman's presentation as being on behalf of the President.212 On the morning of January 6, President Trump made several last-minute "revised appeals to the Vice President" to pressure him into carrying out the plan.213 At 1:00 am, President Trump tweeted: "If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency . . . Mike can send it back!"214 At 8:17 am, President Trump tweeted: "All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"215 Shortly after, President Trump rang Vice President Pence and once again urged him "to make the call" and enact the plan.216 Just before the Joint Session of Congress began, President Trump gave a speech to a large crowd on the Ellipse in which he warned, "[a]nd Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now."217 President Trump ended his speech by galvanizing the crowd to join him in enacting the plan: "Let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" to give Vice President Pence and Congress "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."218 Together, these actions more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding.

---

Quote:

---

Corrupt intent

A person violates 1512(c) when they obstruct an official proceeding with a corrupt mindset. The Ninth Circuit has not defined "corruptly" for purposes of this statute.222 However, the court has made clear that the threshold for acting "corruptly" is lower than "consciousness of wrongdoing,"223 meaning a person does not need to know their actions are wrong to break the law. Because President Trump likely knew that the plan to disrupt the electoral count was wrongful, his mindset exceeds the threshold for acting "corruptly" under 1512(c). President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful. Although Dr. Eastman argues that President Trump was advised several state elections were fraudulent,224 the Select Committee points to numerous executive branch officials who publicly stated225 and privately stressed to President Trump226 that there was no evidence of fraud. By early January, more than sixty courts dismissed cases alleging fraud due to lack of standing or lack of evidence,227 noting that they made "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations"228 and that "there is no evidence to support accusations of voter fraud."229 President Trump's repeated pleas230 for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election: "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."231 Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification. The plan not only lacked factual basis but also legal justification. Dr. Eastman's memo noted that the plan was "BOLD, Certainly."232 The memo declared Dr. Eastman's intent to step outside the bounds of normal legal practice: "we're no longer playing by Queensbury Rules."233 In addition, Vice President Pence "very consistent[ly]" made clear to President Trump that the plan was unlawful, refusing "many times" to unilaterally reject electors or return them to the states.234 In the meeting in the Oval Office two days before January 6, Vice President Pence stressed his "immediate instinct that there is no way that one person could be entrusted by the Framers to exercise that authority."235 Dr. Eastman argues that the plan was legally justified as it "was grounded on a good faith interpretation of the Constitution."236 But "ignorance of the law is no excuse,"237 and believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process. 238 And President Trump knew how to pursue election claims in courtafter filing and losing more than sixty suits, this plan was a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means. The illegality of the plan was obvious. Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections.239 Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, "no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority."240 Every Americanand certainly the President of the United Statesknows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this "BOLD,"241 President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

---

Quote:

---

Agreement to obstruct a lawful government function

As the Court discussed at length above,244 the evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. While the Court earlier analyzed those actions as attempts to obstruct an "official proceeding," Congress convening to count electoral votes is also a "lawful function of government" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 371, which Dr. Eastman does not dispute. An "agreement" between co-conspirators need not be express and can be inferred from the conspirators' conduct.245 There is strong circumstantial evidence to show that there was likely an agreement between President Trump and Dr. Eastman to enact the plan articulated in Dr. Eastman's memo. In the days leading up to January 6, Dr. Eastman and President Trump had two meetings with high-ranking officials to advance the plan. On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a meeting in the Oval Office to persuade Vice President Pence to carry out the plan. The next day, President Trump sent Dr. Eastman to continue discussions with the Vice President's staff, in which Vice President Pence's counsel perceived Dr. Eastman as the President's representative.246 Leading small meetings in the heart of the White House implies an agreement between the President and Dr. Eastman and a shared goal of advancing the electoral count plan. The strength of this agreement was evident from President Trump's praise for Dr. Eastman and his plan in his January 6 speech on the Ellipse: "John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, 'What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.'"247 Based on these repeated meetings and statements, the evidence shows that an agreement to enact the electoral count plan likely existed between President Trump and Dr. Eastman.

---

Quote:

---

Deceitful or dishonest means

Obstruction of a lawful government function violates 371 when it is carried out "by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."248 While acting on a "good faith misunderstanding" of the law is not dishonest, "merely disagreeing with the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding . . . because all persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not they agree with it."249 The Court discussed above how the evidence shows that President Trump likely knew that the electoral count plan was illegal.250 President Trump continuing to push that plan despite being aware of its illegality constituted obstruction by "dishonest" means under 371. The evidence also demonstrates that Dr. Eastman likely knew that the plan was unlawful. Dr. Eastman heard from numerous mentors and like-minded colleagues that his plan had no basis in history or precedent. Fourth Circuit Judge Luttig, for whom Dr. Eastman clerked, publicly stated that the plan's analysis was "incorrect at every turn."251 Vice President Pence's legal counsel spent hours refuting each part of the plan to Dr. Eastman, including noting there had never been a departure from the Electoral Count Act252 and that not "a single one of [the] Framers would agree with [his] position."253 Dr. Eastman himself repeatedly recognized that his plan had no legal support. In his discussion with the Vice President's counsel, Dr. Eastman "acknowledged" the "100 percent consistent historical practice since the time of the Founding" that the Vice President did not have the authority to act as the memo proposed.254 More importantly, Dr. Eastman admitted more than once that "his proposal violate[d] several provisions of statutory law,"255 including explicitly characterizing the plan as "one more relatively minor violation" of the Electoral Count Act.256 In addition, on January 5, Dr. Eastman conceded that the Supreme Court would unanimously reject his plan for the Vice President to reject electoral votes.257 Later that day, Dr. Eastman admitted that his "more palatable" idea to have the Vice President delay, rather than reject counting electors, rested on "the same basic legal theory" that he knew would not survive judicial scrutiny.258 Dr. Eastman's views on the Electoral Count Act are not, as he argues, a "good faith interpretation" of the law;259 they are a partisan distortion of the democratic process. His plan was driven not by preserving the Constitution, but by winning the 2020 election: Dr. Eastman acknowledged that he didn't think Kamala Harris should have that authority in 2024; he didn't think Al Gore should have had it in 2000; and he acknowledged that no small government conservative should think that that was the case.260 Dr. Eastman also understood the gravity of his plan for democracyhe acknowledged "you would just have the same party win continuously if the Vice President had the authority to just declare the winner of every State."261 The evidence shows that Dr. Eastman was aware that his plan violated the Electoral Count Act. Dr. Eastman likely acted deceitfully and dishonestly each time he pushed an outcome-driven plan that he knew was unsupported by the law.

---

Quote:

---

Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

President Trump and Dr. Eastman participated in numerous overt acts in furtherance of their shared plan. As detailed at length above, President Trump's acts to strong-arm Vice President Pence into following the plan included meeting with and calling the Vice President and berating him in a speech to thousands outside the Capitol.262 Dr. Eastman joined for one of those meetings, spent hours attempting to convince the Vice President's counsel to support the plan, and gave his own speech at the Ellipse "demanding" the Vice President "stand up" and enact his plan.263 Based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

---

Dude, give it up. Now do Russiagate, Mueller Gate, Ukraine Gate.... Etc. Democrats hindered Trump's entire presidency by knowingly deceiving investigators and covering up for their own crimes using the investigators themselves as the cover up agents.

Fly away.....

Start with Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, Obama, Comey, and the other establishment criminals. Once the old swamp scum is in prison, then we can begin looking at Trump.

Lotta finger pointing gong on here. Not a lot of addressing Trump's crimes.

A Clinton appointee. predictable.